5 ms·

This follows a long term trend. The last 5 years have been the warmest in the past 170 years of measured temperature [1]. Like it or not, the earth is hotter a

This follows a long term trend. The last 5 years have been the warmest in the past 170 years of measured temperature [1]. Like it or not, the earth is hotter and will continue to get hotter. This will have consequences for civilization in the form of declining agricultural output and mass migrations of people. There are somethings we can choose to do to minimize these consequences, such as eliminating carbon emissions and geoengineering (blocking sunlight with sunlight reflecting pollutants and sequestering carbon) and there are things we will have to do to adapt, such as reducing meat consumption, building sea walls, and changing how we grow food. Regardless, we’re looking at an expensive future. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176

secnono 5y ago
It's not about eliminating carbon emissions, or geoengineering, or reducing meat consumption or changing how we grow food. The underlying problem is over population. We have about 7 Billion people too many, if the earth had only 1 Billion we wouldn't have human induced global warming.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  We have 7 billion people now that all need food and shelter. I absolutely oppose any action to bring that number down. If we do nothing about global heating, that number may drop to 1 billion regardless through tremendous suffering.
  - officialjunk 5y ago
    i would argue that would be a signal the population was too high. nature has a way to force a balance. it would be horrible, the amount of suffering, i totally agree, though. ultimately, there are a lot of other variables involved too, but the sheer scale of our impact on this earth is directly correlated with population. yes, there may be other ways to tackle the problem and i hope we find at least one of them.
hedora 5y ago
If we paid $1/gallon of gasoline into a carbon recapture fund, that would be more than enough to offset the emissions burning the gasoline would create. The real crime is that all the things you’re talking about are far more expensive than such a tax, yet politicians still refuse to act.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  How do you ensure the fund sinks carbon back into the ground, and doesn’t simply evaporate into pockets and pet projects? It’s a fine idea, but needs to go directly to funding carbon sequestration with as much transparency and oversight as possible. Re politicians, you’re absolutely right. They have no spine or will to drive the change necessary, whether out of beliefs or self preservation.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  There is policy that can be enacted based on the idea of putting a price on carbon to account for the externalities it generates. You can 1) cap and trade, 2) tax it. California has gone with the cap and trade system, and has basically put a price on emitting carbon. It also has an offset program, which incentivizes carbon and greenhouse gas sequestration. This of course has the problem that you need to account for how much carbon a particular land use pattern in a particular region reduces. Regardless, California has the lowest carbon emissions per capita in the US [1]. Carbon taxes will result in less carbon emissions. They will disproportionately affect the poor because it is a flat tax. Canada gets around that by returning carbon tax revenue to tax payers [2] so you benefit financially if you emit less carbon. Contrast this with Australia, where the party that enacted a carbon tax was voted out of power and the tax repealed in 2014 [3]. Regardless, these are incentive structures to support reducing carbon emissions. What we really need is to eliminate the emissions and they way to do that is by making considerable and necessary changes. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/california-way-ahead-in-game-of-life-and-death-carbon-emissions/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/california-way-ahead-... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
- 5y ago

secnono 5y ago

It's not about eliminating carbon emissions, or geoengineering, or reducing meat consumption or changing how we grow food. The underlying problem is over population. We have about 7 Billion people too many, if the earth had only 1 Billion we wouldn't have human induced global warming.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
We have 7 billion people now that all need food and shelter. I absolutely oppose any action to bring that number down. If we do nothing about global heating, that number may drop to 1 billion regardless through tremendous suffering.
- officialjunk 5y ago
  i would argue that would be a signal the population was too high. nature has a way to force a balance. it would be horrible, the amount of suffering, i totally agree, though. ultimately, there are a lot of other variables involved too, but the sheer scale of our impact on this earth is directly correlated with population. yes, there may be other ways to tackle the problem and i hope we find at least one of them.

hedora 5y ago

If we paid $1/gallon of gasoline into a carbon recapture fund, that would be more than enough to offset the emissions burning the gasoline would create. The real crime is that all the things you’re talking about are far more expensive than such a tax, yet politicians still refuse to act.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
How do you ensure the fund sinks carbon back into the ground, and doesn’t simply evaporate into pockets and pet projects? It’s a fine idea, but needs to go directly to funding carbon sequestration with as much transparency and oversight as possible. Re politicians, you’re absolutely right. They have no spine or will to drive the change necessary, whether out of beliefs or self preservation.
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
There is policy that can be enacted based on the idea of putting a price on carbon to account for the externalities it generates. You can 1) cap and trade, 2) tax it. California has gone with the cap and trade system, and has basically put a price on emitting carbon. It also has an offset program, which incentivizes carbon and greenhouse gas sequestration. This of course has the problem that you need to account for how much carbon a particular land use pattern in a particular region reduces. Regardless, California has the lowest carbon emissions per capita in the US [1]. Carbon taxes will result in less carbon emissions. They will disproportionately affect the poor because it is a flat tax. Canada gets around that by returning carbon tax revenue to tax payers [2] so you benefit financially if you emit less carbon. Contrast this with Australia, where the party that enacted a carbon tax was voted out of power and the tax repealed in 2014 [3]. Regardless, these are incentive structures to support reducing carbon emissions. What we really need is to eliminate the emissions and they way to do that is by making considerable and necessary changes. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/california-way-ahead-in-game-of-life-and-death-carbon-emissions/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/california-way-ahead-... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
5y ago