10 ms·
Let's be realistic - we are not "stopping" anything. At this point the goal is to slow it down. We may already be beyond the point of no return.
by papito 6y ago
Let's be realistic - we are not "stopping" anything. At this point the goal is to slow it down. We may already be beyond the point of no return.
- mulmen 6y agoNonsense. Our only hard limits are the laws of physics. Even with our rudimentary understanding of the universe our only practical limitation is usable energy production, and progress is rapid on that front.
- dmos62 6y agoWe are already experiencing negative effects of climate change. Can we reverse them? If not, we're beyond the point of no return. That's just terminology. It's vague because what our goals are as regards climate change is undefined.
- Retric 6y agoPoint of no return suggests some meaningful barrier was crossed. It’s true we are further than after the first person used coal to start a fire, but today is just another step on a process that’s thousands of years old. Various economic models of the impact of climate change suggest for northern countries we only recently left the realm of net benefit. It’s going to keep getting worse, but it’s hardly a major disaster right now. Limiting future climate change is important, going back to some arbitrary point in the past isn’t a clear net benefit. Hell, in 10,000 years humanity might be using massive amounts of orbital infrastructure to directly control the weather and actually prefer more atmospheric CO2. Or they might want to lower CO2 below preindustrial levels, we just don’t know.
- dmos62 6y agoWhat is disaster isn't self evident either. I, for one, consider the effect on various wild life systems as disastrous already. Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.
- allworknoplay 6y agoYeah this thread is filled with reactionaries downvoting everything that offends them :/
- foerbert 6y agoI find this view to be somewhat whitewashed, at best. There are multiple obvious, and meaningful, barriers. The effects of carbon dioxide production are not simply a collection of linear relationships. One tonne of CO2 today doesn't have just as much impact as one tonne of CO2 last year. There are points at which ocean acidity levels become incompatible with certain forms of life. There are limits to carbon sinks. There are points at which positive feedback loops become active. All of these things - and more - mean that there are very marked differences in the impact of the first coal fire and a steel plant (for a topical example) even after you normalize for the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Presenting current and modern carbon dioxide production as simply a continuation of the first coal fire is at a minimum ridiculous.
- Retric 6y ago1 ton of atmospheric CO2 released in 2020 is exactly the same as 1 ton of atmospheric CO2 left over from coal fires in 1020. There is vastly more CO2 from fossil fuel entering the atmosphere today, but it’s only a difference in quantity. Which is the issue, CO2 produced today will generally still be around in another 1,000 years. Across geologic timescales it’s going to be sequestered, but on human timescales it’s basically permanent. There isn’t a clear transition point where suddenly this ton of CO2 kills of the Great Barrier Reef, it’s a very gradual transition that means coral has a very slightly harder time growing today than it did yesterday. Not burning a ton of coal in yesterday would have been as useful as not burning a ton of coal tomorrow, the only difference is we can’t go back to yesterday.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- matthewdgreen 6y agoThe difference is that, barring time travel, there is nothing we can do to prevent the emission of a ton of CO2 that was emitted in 1020 (and even with time travel there is little contemporaneous technology we could replace it with.) But there is potentially a lot we can do (at various levels of cost) to prevent the emission of one ton of CO2 in any future year and the consequences of that additional emission may be disproportionately worse. Your own post acknowledges this, and it’s very much the point of the GP poster.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- allworknoplay 6y ago"For northern countries" It's absolutely monstrous to think in terms of what's ok just for the global north, here. We've done the vast majority of this polluting, and the global south is, in fact, currently, undergoing catastrophic change because of it.
- Retric 6y agoThat’s a fair point, however climate change has a much larger impact on temperatures at the poles than the equator. You still get rising sea levels and a PH change in the ocean, but the impacts aren’t evenly distributed. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html Another example is tropical diseases can move to colder areas as their carriers migrate north/south. However, there isn’t a hotter place to for insects to migrate to the equator from.
- allworknoplay 6y agoYes exactly -- so to measure just by what happens to us in the north -- particularly when we're causing the problems -- is basically genocidal.
- eloff 6y agoThe north is where the majority of the food is grown and people live. At higher latitudes is also where the majority of change will be felt. Not to discount the affects in the south, but they are very likely less impactful.
- allworknoplay 6y agoMost people live there, and most food for those people is grown there. These are people, who are not responsible for the catastrophes destroying their ability to live.
- kaliszad 6y agoActually, Europe isn't the low hanging fruit you are looking for. It is the US and China. The current output is much more than the history "head start" of Europe. For the normal workers in European countries (who might be actually living on a tight budget too), the reality is, they cannot do much about any of this without taking considerable personal toll (so real and fast change mostly doesn't fly politically). They can in certain circumstances e.g. eliminate inefficient heating with coal or oil or maybe drive with a more efficient and less polluting car, which improves air quality in their areas and thus health. This is achievable currently with small incentives and we can also observe most of it happening in richer areas, where there is spare capital in families to invest in such things. All of this has its cost first and the benefit can be felt quite a bit later if at all. Btw. it will change exactly nothing painting this as a conflict of the global wealthy north against the global poor south (implied). It is not very constructive and quite naive. Don't get me wrong, I am all for healthy environment for everybody as can be seen in my comments elsewhere.
- allworknoplay 6y agoCapitalism's relentless drive for growth and deregulation would like a word with you. My favorite book of 2020 if you'd like to read more: https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more
- indymike 6y agoPhysics is not an economic system.
- dm319 6y agoThe pursuit of continuous growth has an effect on our physical world.
- indymike 6y agoCapitalism is not the pursuit of continuous growth, either.
- allworknoplay 6y agoGDP and GDP growth are the universal metrics by which every major international organization judges and ranks economies. IMF voting is literally determined by your GDP. There are no other metrics that are remotely commonly used to determine real international policies. Every nation on earth is in explicit competition with every other to grow faster because of this. These policies are prescriptions by capitalist countries that weren't like this before and likely wouldn't be after. It's beyond silly to claim that capitalism doesn't require endless growth.
- kortilla 6y agoGDP doesn’t mean growth. A country going through an economic contraction still has a massive GDP. There are no IMF policies that favor growth rates, just the raw GDP. > It's beyond silly to claim that capitalism doesn't require endless growth. Capitalism requires no such thing. It’s human reproduction and striving for better conditions that requires economic expansion. That doesn’t change under socialism/communism/whatever. Finally, GDP growth does not imply anything about carbon production. Some of the biggest growth sectors going forward are entirely about clean energy.
- bluntfang 6y agoIt's not nonsense. It's real and we need to face it. Pretending like we have a handle on the universe is brazenly dismissive of the reality. The only thing calling it nonsense does is further demonstrate human's hubris.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Technically 6y ago> Our only hard limits are the laws of physics. Even with our rudimentary understanding of the universe our only practical limitation is usable energy production, and progress is rapid on that front. Well yea we could pull miraculous technology out of our ass tomorrow that can reverse human civilization, but I don't see any reason to expect this.