5 ms·

> We need to continue to push for urgent action on climate change The other scientists echoed that thought. The problem is that there's little consensus on wh

by aazaa 5y ago

> We need to continue to push for urgent action on climate change The other scientists echoed that thought. The problem is that there's little consensus on what that "urgent action" entails. Fossil fuel overconsumption and the culture/economics of waste are deeply engrained behaviors for a lot of the world. There's this widespread sense that technology and/or legislation will somehow be able to roll back increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. I think that's baloney. The last year offered a window into the future. Many industrial economies were taken offline to an unprecedented degree. And the result was... a new record high in atmospheric CO2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/07/carbon-dioxide-levels-in-atmosphere-reach-record-high https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/07/carbon-d... Assuming that the underlying hypothesis is correct (that the CO2 increase is in fact what's driving temperature increases and that humans are responsible for it), the only thing that seems capable of addressing the problem in a meaningful way within the time we have left is immediate, large-scale cutbacks in consumption across the board, with industrial economies bearing the highest burden. And this is the one thing that never seems to be on the table.

mempko 5y ago
And just to clarify, the underlying hypothesis is correct. And your conclusion is also correct.
abeppu 5y ago
I finally read/listened to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" earlier this year. It discusses several cases of societies collapsing or being challenged, especially in the face of environmental damage and climate change, but also issues with neighbors. Two of the lessons that he highlights are the importance of long-term, bold plans to confront problems before they are crises, and the ability to reconsider cultural values and actually change the way that people live and society functions. That book was published in 2005 and last updated in 2011, and it was depressing to get to the last chapter which focuses on the environmental problems we face today with a kind of call to action, and acknowledge that we haven't done anything substantial yet.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Diamond is notorious in the anthropological community for pushing outdated and debunked theories, and Collapse has some of the worst. I think every case of ecological self-destruction he lists is considered debunked by the mainstream community (certainly, his views on Rapa Nui and Greenland are thoroughly debunked)--indeed, there's an entire book published that's a lengthy critique of his work, titled (fittingly) Questioning Collapse.
  - abeppu 5y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out! As a layperson I had no idea. I suppose I did get the sense that like many authors with a Framework in mind, Diamond was likely picking and choosing examples. Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse? Or is it mostly of interest to people seeking to understand the specific societies addressed?
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
      > Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse? Sometimes, the most important generalized take-away message is that there aren’t generalized take-away messages. Many times the causes for collapse are different and multi-factorial that an overarching theory that tries to generalize across a bunch of events is more misleading than helpful.
      - abeppu 5y ago
        I get that sometimes we get carried away trying to universalize something and let a good story get in the way of the actual facts. This is to be avoided, and if others hold those narratives up to rigorous scrutiny, that's healthy. However, it doesn't seem helpful to swing the pendulum all the way to the other end of the spectrum, where we regard everything as being so rooted in the specific and context and circumstances, that we're unwilling to draw any lessons to apply to modern problems. Surely there's some middle ground, where we can have some loose generalizations which we acknowledge only apply some of the time and are only ever partial explanations?
briefcomment 5y ago
Isn't methane much more of an offender than CO2?
- Sebguer 5y ago
  Methane decays relatively rapidly.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Relatively quickly, but it’s also really potent. 25-36 times worse over the first century, despite the decay period of 12 years: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... (Note that while linked page says 28-36, another page on the same site says 25).
- w-j-w 5y ago
  Per pound, methane is much worse for the climate. We produce way more CO2 though.
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  No, co2 is bigger by quite a bit. Methane is increasing rapidly which is a big concern because of potential feedback effects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
- ArnoVW 5y ago
  One molecule of methane is worse than one molecule of CO2. But there is more CO2 than there is methane, so the total 'warming' by CO2 is worse.
  - nverno 5y ago
    Except we've already reached higher saturation (for black body radiation absorption) with CO2 than with methane. So, there is certainly a strong case to be made that methane is more impactful in the short-term than CO2 in terms of climate warming.
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
The simplest solution is: $30/tonne CO2 price, and also requiring fossil fuel exporters (including in other countries) to add this price to their exports unless the shipment is going to a country that also has a carbon price.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Doesn't china have vast coal reserves and an extreme willingness to burn it? In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate. It is unclear how to calculate them from my perspective.
  - joecool1029 5y ago
    >Doesn't china have vast coal reserves and an extreme willingness to burn it? China's share of coal energy production has declined precipitously. While the total amount continues to increase, they are making large investments into both solar and nuclear energy. Like it or not China's still a fairly rapidly growing economy that produces most of the renewable technologies for the world. Any phase-out of coal while trying to push things like electric cars is going to take time. >In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate. Yes, Australia should be sanctioned for using and selling so much coal to China. In a country that has the easiest situation to produce solar energy and copious uranium reserves, they still get something like half their energy from coal and have no nuclear energy. They have consistently had one of the highest per-capita CO2 emissions of any country. Or why not talk about stupid Germany that shut down their nuclear plants without a clear path to eliminating coal use. They had to build new plants and import coal while they waited to become dependent on Russia for natural gas.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  The simplest solution is for everyone to just stop using fossil fuels but simple doesn't mean easy, possible, or good in any way that matters. Your solution would give an economic advantage to countries which don't cooperate. How will you persuade any country (including the US) to shoot itself in the foot first? That doesn't sound simple.
exporectomy 5y ago
> immediate, large-scale cutbacks in consumption across the board, with industrial economies bearing the highest burden. Would that cure be worse than the disease?
kieranmaine 5y ago
Last year didn't offer a window into the future. The future is: * Low co2 steel - https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/steel-hydrogen-low-co2-startups/99/i22 https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/steel-hydrog... * Low CO2 cement - https://www.ecocem.ie/ecocem-materials-limited-raises-e22-5m-from-breakthrough-energy-ventures-and-breakthrough-energy-ventures-europe/ https://www.ecocem.ie/ecocem-materials-limited-raises-e22-5m... * The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to prevent transferring manufacturing to countries with high CO2 emissions - https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/what-does-an-eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-mean-for-the-uk/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/what-doe... * Tightening emissions regulations in the EU, helping to drive the adoption of EVs - https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regulation_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regul... * UK ban on gas and oil boilers from 2025 - https://www.thermalearth.co.uk/blog/gas-boilers-banned-new-homes-2025 https://www.thermalearth.co.uk/blog/gas-boilers-banned-new-h... * Low CO2 concrete - https://www.aggbusiness.com/ab9/news/first-deployment-ultra-low-co2-concrete https://www.aggbusiness.com/ab9/news/first-deployment-ultra-... These are just a few of the positive developments that I'm aware of. However, I agree a lot more could be done. At the same time I feel we're reaching a tipping point where regulation and innovation will lead to a the rapid decarbonisation of society. Unfortunately, I'm uncertain this decarbonisation will happen quickly enough.
- aazaa 5y ago
  In other words, technology and legislation, but nothing about cutting consumption. I agree that you name some excellent technologies. I'm just doubtful that this approach will yield the desired outcome because of the scale of the problem. Are you aware of any calculations as to what precise technological and legislative innovations, and the scale/timeframe of their deployment, would be needed to maintain an average temperature no more than 2% above pre-industrial levels?
  - kieranmaine 5y ago
    I'm afraid I don't. Whilst it seems likely this target won't be met, I'm hoping there's enough small changes across many sectors that add up to substantial progress.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
"Urgent action" was defined in Kyoto, Doha, and then Paris. It wasn't urgent enough to actually happen, but the goals and consequences of failing to meet them were clearly specified. It's now (probably) too late for prevention, so policy needs to shift to mitigation. That's a far harder problem, and the solution set will be far more costly. To be clear - this is a massive failure of collective intelligence and of the default policy metrics used to make decisions. An intelligent civilisation would not have allowed this to happen.
- aazaa 5y ago
  The Paris Agreement does not define "urgent action." It does offer a broad vision for the end goal (reducing the increase in global temperature), but leaves implementation up to the signatories. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application... I haven't read the others, but would not be surprised to see similar language.
ayngg 5y ago
I think the biggest challenge is framing the issue of climate change. "Urgent action" regarding climate change is a political/ economic issue. Innovation will have to happen for sure, but replacing current infrastructure will take a long time before economic incentives line up for it to happen naturally. The incentives need to be lined up for everyone to buy in, which is difficult in systems that are disproportionately effected by any changes that need to happen. Domestically, people will resist change when they suspect that it will leave them short changed economically, everyone has seen how it has played out when other forms of deindustrialization have ravaged large portions of the developed world. When there is no real plans for people effected by such a change, you cannot expect these people to care about the suffering of humanity in 50-100 years when policy changes will cause them to suffer greatly in the meantime. These people need to be on board or there will be political costs that will threaten to undermine it all down the road. Then on an international level it is matter of finding consensus between many players that have very different ideas on what is fair. Many developing countries do not feel it is fair for developed countries to dictate regulation when they have already done their exploitation to become developed nations. When one of those countries is China, who emitted more greenhouse gasses than the g7 combined in 2019, it becomes a tricky path to navigate. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest option, it can come across as developed countries making a moat, hindering other countries from catching up. That could lead to the double whammy of developed nations needing to both curtail their fossil fuel energy use, while simultaneously being forced to subsidize development of developing nations to get them on board, which is a very big ask for nations drowning in debt already. On top of that there are geopolitical ramifications that are at the foundation of any negotiation at this scale, especially when large players like China and the US are involved. For the most part, most of these issues are ignored in popular discourse in favor of divisive rhetoric about being anti-science, probably because it is far easier politically to just dismiss them and kick the issue down the road then try to solve it because it is an extremely difficult problem to solve. Even those that are most vocal about climate change don't offer any real policy solutions to these issues outside of vague things involving printing a ton of money, going into a ton of debt or getting a ton of extra tax revenue.
bsder 5y ago
> The last year offered a window into the future. Many industrial economies were taken offline to an unprecedented degree. Um, what got taken offline? The service economy got taken offline. And it contributes very little to the emissions problem. Driving got knocked down some, but not as much as you would think. Sure, HN denizens all went into hibernation, but most of them work in tech and account for a fairly small number of the total employment numbers. Manufacturing actually went up in most sectors.
tomjen3 5y ago
It is never on the table, because it is not politically viable, and why should it be when it would be worse than the disease? We either figure out how to solve this with the tools that we have and can develop (I am looking at you, geoengineering) or we deal with the effect (buy stock in companies that build dykes, sell your home if it is less than 20 meters above sea level). We are not going to return to preindustrial level society, not only is that a hellish existence but 7 billion is about 6 billion more than the earth can support.
dv_dt 5y ago
There is little consensus among political leaders who can make a change, but quite consistent consensus among scientists and activists.

by aazaa 5y ago

mempko 5y ago

And just to clarify, the underlying hypothesis is correct. And your conclusion is also correct.

abeppu 5y ago

I finally read/listened to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" earlier this year. It discusses several cases of societies collapsing or being challenged, especially in the face of environmental damage and climate change, but also issues with neighbors. Two of the lessons that he highlights are the importance of long-term, bold plans to confront problems before they are crises, and the ability to reconsider cultural values and actually change the way that people live and society functions. That book was published in 2005 and last updated in 2011, and it was depressing to get to the last chapter which focuses on the environmental problems we face today with a kind of call to action, and acknowledge that we haven't done anything substantial yet.

jcranmer 5y ago
Diamond is notorious in the anthropological community for pushing outdated and debunked theories, and Collapse has some of the worst. I think every case of ecological self-destruction he lists is considered debunked by the mainstream community (certainly, his views on Rapa Nui and Greenland are thoroughly debunked)--indeed, there's an entire book published that's a lengthy critique of his work, titled (fittingly) Questioning Collapse.
- abeppu 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out! As a layperson I had no idea. I suppose I did get the sense that like many authors with a Framework in mind, Diamond was likely picking and choosing examples. Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse? Or is it mostly of interest to people seeking to understand the specific societies addressed?
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
    > Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse? Sometimes, the most important generalized take-away message is that there aren’t generalized take-away messages. Many times the causes for collapse are different and multi-factorial that an overarching theory that tries to generalize across a bunch of events is more misleading than helpful.
    - abeppu 5y ago
      I get that sometimes we get carried away trying to universalize something and let a good story get in the way of the actual facts. This is to be avoided, and if others hold those narratives up to rigorous scrutiny, that's healthy. However, it doesn't seem helpful to swing the pendulum all the way to the other end of the spectrum, where we regard everything as being so rooted in the specific and context and circumstances, that we're unwilling to draw any lessons to apply to modern problems. Surely there's some middle ground, where we can have some loose generalizations which we acknowledge only apply some of the time and are only ever partial explanations?

briefcomment 5y ago

Isn't methane much more of an offender than CO2?

Sebguer 5y ago
Methane decays relatively rapidly.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Relatively quickly, but it’s also really potent. 25-36 times worse over the first century, despite the decay period of 12 years: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... (Note that while linked page says 28-36, another page on the same site says 25).
w-j-w 5y ago
Per pound, methane is much worse for the climate. We produce way more CO2 though.
thinkcontext 5y ago
No, co2 is bigger by quite a bit. Methane is increasing rapidly which is a big concern because of potential feedback effects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
ArnoVW 5y ago
One molecule of methane is worse than one molecule of CO2. But there is more CO2 than there is methane, so the total 'warming' by CO2 is worse.
- nverno 5y ago
  Except we've already reached higher saturation (for black body radiation absorption) with CO2 than with methane. So, there is certainly a strong case to be made that methane is more impactful in the short-term than CO2 in terms of climate warming.

ArkanExplorer 5y ago

The simplest solution is: $30/tonne CO2 price, and also requiring fossil fuel exporters (including in other countries) to add this price to their exports unless the shipment is going to a country that also has a carbon price.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Doesn't china have vast coal reserves and an extreme willingness to burn it? In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate. It is unclear how to calculate them from my perspective.
- joecool1029 5y ago
  >Doesn't china have vast coal reserves and an extreme willingness to burn it? China's share of coal energy production has declined precipitously. While the total amount continues to increase, they are making large investments into both solar and nuclear energy. Like it or not China's still a fairly rapidly growing economy that produces most of the renewable technologies for the world. Any phase-out of coal while trying to push things like electric cars is going to take time. >In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate. Yes, Australia should be sanctioned for using and selling so much coal to China. In a country that has the easiest situation to produce solar energy and copious uranium reserves, they still get something like half their energy from coal and have no nuclear energy. They have consistently had one of the highest per-capita CO2 emissions of any country. Or why not talk about stupid Germany that shut down their nuclear plants without a clear path to eliminating coal use. They had to build new plants and import coal while they waited to become dependent on Russia for natural gas.
exporectomy 5y ago
The simplest solution is for everyone to just stop using fossil fuels but simple doesn't mean easy, possible, or good in any way that matters. Your solution would give an economic advantage to countries which don't cooperate. How will you persuade any country (including the US) to shoot itself in the foot first? That doesn't sound simple.

exporectomy 5y ago

> immediate, large-scale cutbacks in consumption across the board, with industrial economies bearing the highest burden. Would that cure be worse than the disease?

kieranmaine 5y ago

Last year didn't offer a window into the future. The future is: * Low co2 steel - https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/steel-hydrogen-low-co2-startups/99/i22 https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/steel-hydrog... * Low CO2 cement - https://www.ecocem.ie/ecocem-materials-limited-raises-e22-5m-from-breakthrough-energy-ventures-and-breakthrough-energy-ventures-europe/ https://www.ecocem.ie/ecocem-materials-limited-raises-e22-5m... * The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to prevent transferring manufacturing to countries with high CO2 emissions - https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/what-does-an-eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-mean-for-the-uk/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/what-doe... * Tightening emissions regulations in the EU, helping to drive the adoption of EVs - https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regulation_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regul... * UK ban on gas and oil boilers from 2025 - https://www.thermalearth.co.uk/blog/gas-boilers-banned-new-homes-2025 https://www.thermalearth.co.uk/blog/gas-boilers-banned-new-h... * Low CO2 concrete - https://www.aggbusiness.com/ab9/news/first-deployment-ultra-low-co2-concrete https://www.aggbusiness.com/ab9/news/first-deployment-ultra-... These are just a few of the positive developments that I'm aware of. However, I agree a lot more could be done. At the same time I feel we're reaching a tipping point where regulation and innovation will lead to a the rapid decarbonisation of society. Unfortunately, I'm uncertain this decarbonisation will happen quickly enough.

aazaa 5y ago
In other words, technology and legislation, but nothing about cutting consumption. I agree that you name some excellent technologies. I'm just doubtful that this approach will yield the desired outcome because of the scale of the problem. Are you aware of any calculations as to what precise technological and legislative innovations, and the scale/timeframe of their deployment, would be needed to maintain an average temperature no more than 2% above pre-industrial levels?
- kieranmaine 5y ago
  I'm afraid I don't. Whilst it seems likely this target won't be met, I'm hoping there's enough small changes across many sectors that add up to substantial progress.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

"Urgent action" was defined in Kyoto, Doha, and then Paris. It wasn't urgent enough to actually happen, but the goals and consequences of failing to meet them were clearly specified. It's now (probably) too late for prevention, so policy needs to shift to mitigation. That's a far harder problem, and the solution set will be far more costly. To be clear - this is a massive failure of collective intelligence and of the default policy metrics used to make decisions. An intelligent civilisation would not have allowed this to happen.

aazaa 5y ago
The Paris Agreement does not define "urgent action." It does offer a broad vision for the end goal (reducing the increase in global temperature), but leaves implementation up to the signatories. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application... I haven't read the others, but would not be surprised to see similar language.

ayngg 5y ago

I think the biggest challenge is framing the issue of climate change. "Urgent action" regarding climate change is a political/ economic issue. Innovation will have to happen for sure, but replacing current infrastructure will take a long time before economic incentives line up for it to happen naturally. The incentives need to be lined up for everyone to buy in, which is difficult in systems that are disproportionately effected by any changes that need to happen. Domestically, people will resist change when they suspect that it will leave them short changed economically, everyone has seen how it has played out when other forms of deindustrialization have ravaged large portions of the developed world. When there is no real plans for people effected by such a change, you cannot expect these people to care about the suffering of humanity in 50-100 years when policy changes will cause them to suffer greatly in the meantime. These people need to be on board or there will be political costs that will threaten to undermine it all down the road. Then on an international level it is matter of finding consensus between many players that have very different ideas on what is fair. Many developing countries do not feel it is fair for developed countries to dictate regulation when they have already done their exploitation to become developed nations. When one of those countries is China, who emitted more greenhouse gasses than the g7 combined in 2019, it becomes a tricky path to navigate. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest option, it can come across as developed countries making a moat, hindering other countries from catching up. That could lead to the double whammy of developed nations needing to both curtail their fossil fuel energy use, while simultaneously being forced to subsidize development of developing nations to get them on board, which is a very big ask for nations drowning in debt already. On top of that there are geopolitical ramifications that are at the foundation of any negotiation at this scale, especially when large players like China and the US are involved. For the most part, most of these issues are ignored in popular discourse in favor of divisive rhetoric about being anti-science, probably because it is far easier politically to just dismiss them and kick the issue down the road then try to solve it because it is an extremely difficult problem to solve. Even those that are most vocal about climate change don't offer any real policy solutions to these issues outside of vague things involving printing a ton of money, going into a ton of debt or getting a ton of extra tax revenue.

bsder 5y ago

> The last year offered a window into the future. Many industrial economies were taken offline to an unprecedented degree. Um, what got taken offline? The service economy got taken offline. And it contributes very little to the emissions problem. Driving got knocked down some, but not as much as you would think. Sure, HN denizens all went into hibernation, but most of them work in tech and account for a fairly small number of the total employment numbers. Manufacturing actually went up in most sectors.

tomjen3 5y ago

It is never on the table, because it is not politically viable, and why should it be when it would be worse than the disease? We either figure out how to solve this with the tools that we have and can develop (I am looking at you, geoengineering) or we deal with the effect (buy stock in companies that build dykes, sell your home if it is less than 20 meters above sea level). We are not going to return to preindustrial level society, not only is that a hellish existence but 7 billion is about 6 billion more than the earth can support.

dv_dt 5y ago

There is little consensus among political leaders who can make a change, but quite consistent consensus among scientists and activists.