4 ms·
No matter how you slice it, it all eventually comes down to energy. We know how to generate power with minimal CO2 emissions, but we don't do it at the necessa
by pmiller2 6y ago
No matter how you slice it, it all eventually comes down to energy.
We know how to generate power with minimal CO2 emissions, but we don't do it at the necessary scale. We know how to recycle, but we don't actually do that, either, and it takes energy. And, capturing carbon... well, if you want to put the carbon genie back in the bottle, you have to either expend energy to do it, or violate the laws of thermodynamics. One cuts into the amount of energy you can consume, while the other is an impossibility. All this is just making the argument that we need to share the technology to do these things as broadly as possible, including throughout the global south.
Do you or do you not believe there's a finite amount of energy we can expend and still remain sustainable? Essentially, we're limited to biomass (which puts carbon back in the air that was taken out of the air previously), nuclear, gravity (hydroelectric, more or less), and solar (solar panels, wind). To go past that, we need to get into fossil fuels, and be very, very careful we don't exceed the ability of the Earth to absorb the CO2 we put in the air. Unfortunately, we're coming close to exceeding the capacity of the Earth to absorb any nontrivial amount of CO2 and still remain broadly habitable, which is why we're having significant warming over the past several decades. As you said, humans are very pro-growth, which means we're really bad at respecting these sorts of limits. So, we need to remove the temptation to do so ASAP if we are to succeed.
As for innovation, you just told me we have all the technology necessary to go net zero carbon, so, who cares about innovation in the short term? Do you want to watch the collapse of global civilization on your iPhone 15, or something?
Honestly, as long as you're going to sit there and tell me we can capitalism our way out of a problem that was caused by capitalism, you're not convincing me that you can be convinced otherwise. You're literally espousing a position that capitalists refer to as "capitalist realism," which is essentially "we can't conceive of any alternative to capitalism, so, there is no alternative!"
You know the definition of insanity, right? Tell me again why it makes sense that we're going to capitalism our way out of this?
- fastball 6y agoFirst off, you keep saying that this problem was "caused by capitalism". It isn't / wasn't. You might've missed it, but the USSR wasn't exactly a bastion of environmental conscientiousness. This problem is caused by people wanting better lives and / or more stuff. This is not a unique property of capitalism, this is a result of humanity at scale. You are confusing correlation with causation. Of course every problem is correlated with capitalism, almost every society on earth is now capitalistic so any problem is "capitalism's fault" – except it's not, because the problems would still exist with any other economic system we've tried, as is clearly demonstrated by every non-capitalist society that has ever existed which invariably used lots of fossil fuels if they had anywhere near a decent standard of living. You rightly point out this is an energy problem. That is why we need to go full tilt on nuclear. Nuclear can generate vast amounts of energy with near zero CO2 emission and also without requiring vast swaths of land (solar), localized geological features (hydro), etc. Finally, I haven't proposed we "solve this with capitalism". Please go back and re-read my first comment, where I say we need to solve this with: 1. Electrify everything. 2. Lots of nuclear (fission), with fusion sooner rather than later. 3. Carbon capture. Nowhere is capitalism stipulated. Of course, I do actually think capitalism is the way to go, because it is the best system we've ever invented for promoting efficiency, which is obviously a good thing in this discussion. But that was not the point I was making.