9 ms·

Reminder: what is happening now is the result of past emissions and will keep happening year after year no matter what. After humanity finally stops emitting gr

by mrpopo 5y ago

Reminder: what is happening now is the result of past emissions and will keep happening year after year no matter what. After humanity finally stops emitting greenhouse gases, it will not get better, it will just stop getting worse. The earlier we act the less bad the consequences.

gambiting 5y ago
In fact, if we stopped emitting entirely tomorrow, things would get much worse very quickly for a few years, due to the aerosol masking effect. Basically we're actually emitting so much that our pollution is blocking out some of the heat from the sun - remove the pollution and now we have all of the greenhouse gases we had before still in the atmosphere, but we're getting the full amount of heat from the sun. Explained much better here: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cl3ger/z/evsoc1g https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cl3ger/z/evsoc1g
- chaimanmeow 5y ago
  If they can make natural gas turbines send soot thousands of feet into the air like coal plants then we could buy ourselves some time. We need soot generators.
Lutger 5y ago
Whether that is true depends on your sense of scale. After we move to zero emissions, it will take only a couple of decades before CO2 will start to drop again, as the biosphere starts absorbing the greenhouse gases. There's some latency in temperature, much more in sealevel rise, but generally it isn't as bad as frequently depicted. I only learned this recently, I used to think we are unavoidably messed up for centuries, but that's really not the case. For my son I believe there's a scenario it will get better, not worse, in his lifetime. Though it's not a scenario I think is likely to happen. I'm not optimistic about our societies willingness and ability to do so, but all action does matter and we definitely have the possibility. Ironically, drastic and massive climate action is also the cheapest thing to do.
- Gys 5y ago
  The EU ‘proposes to raise the EU's ambition on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030’. At the moment that part of the world is the most ambitious part. > after we move to zero emissions I wonder if that will happen on a planet scale even in your sons lifetime
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    Last night, I watched NGC's "Before the flood". At one point, a director for a local climate action institute in India was interviewed by Leo DiCaprio. She pretty much pointed out that climate change is a social issue in no uncertain terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE As an EU citizen, I applaud the ambitions, but I feel apprehensive at the same time. Regardless how you spin this, affordability is an absolute requirement. For instance, on the consumer side of things, you see this concern expressed by the 'gilets jaunes' movement who were initially road users (commuters, truckers,...) protesting rising fuel prices as those add to the cost of living (whether real or perceived). Low income households can't afford to buy a new fuel efficient or electric car; or renovate their home to be more energy efficient (solar, isolation,...); or even buy groceries with a minimal carbon footprint (cheap food prices translate into externalized costs e.g. meat industry + availability / convenience). Like, over the past few years, several cities have enacted a localized carbon levy for anyone who wants to drive into their city centers. While I'm a proponent of the idea, the net result is that visiting family by car has now become an expensive proposition. Public transport is a partial alternative, but it just doesn't offer the same availability / convenience as a personal vehicle. A concern here is that this levy targets vehicle classes whose emissions are above an established norm. Turns out that a sizable proportion of low income class families living in those cities who find themselves owning a car they can't afford to drive anymore. This was explicitly raised as a policy concern in a parliamentary hearing in late 2020. That's just one concrete example of why climate change is a social issue. The problem raised by the Indian director in the documentary is rooted in the exact same challenge: finding balance between enabling 8 billion people to attain a sustainable, modern living standard while at the same time reducing humanity's reliance on fossil fuels. One also has to understand that in order to attain Western living standards, "the rest of the world" is very much on a trajectory on par with historic social and economic dynamics and changes seen in America and Europe from the late 19th century hence. India and China together constitute about 35% of the global population. As the Indian director rightly questions: How can the West hold a moral high ground at this point in time while not having taken any notable affirmative action over the past 40 years to curb the impact of its own way of living profoundly? Barring any finger pointing towards who does what, the filmmakers also interview the then-mayor of Miami Beach who first-hand faces the consequences of rising sea levels whilst being confronted with party politics. All he can do is install 400 million dollars worth of pumps just to keep his constituency's feet dry for the next 40 to 50 years. He simply ends up stolidly remarking: "The ocean isn't Democratic or Republican. It just keeps rising."
Gravityloss 5y ago
If global human CO2 emissions stopped, the ocean would be absorbing some of the current atmospherical CO2, so it would start going down. The ocean is already currently absorbing, and acidifying as a result. It is not currently in equilibrium. Of course, as it warms, its ability to absorb lessens. Warm water holds less CO2, used as a denialist talking point to say that the CO2 is from the oceans, not from humans. But it actually makes the problem worse. But what's even more important about the nature of this problem that local emissions don't matter. If the US stopped but EU and China etc continued, the US heat dome problem would still go on. That's why this needs to be coordinated internationally. It really matters a lot what the US president and congress does regarding international treaties.
- puchatek 5y ago
  If the US and Canada managed to cut down on their dramatic per capita emission levels then this could serve as an example to others and give some weight to otherwise empty pleas for change. It would also help accelerate green tech to a point where it can compete with fossil fuels on price line it's happening with solar. Others will follow suit naturally at that point
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
Sadly this kind of message will just result in apathy [in the US]. We've seen from the pandemic that just telling people they're going to die unless they take the most basic health precautions isn't enough to create action. We need a massive campaign of manipulation tactics by trusted peers or they're not going to act to save themselves.
- mrpopo 5y ago
  Without being that categoric, I agree there's a psychological side of things that needs to be studied. I heard there is a brain mechanism that allows us to "ignore the inevitable". This makes doom-saying predictions a hard sell. The first step to manipulating people is not to say it's manipulation. Call it "marketing" and "lobbying". Everyone does it, climate activists have to do it too :)
- puchatek 5y ago
  I think you guys need a "War on CO2" if you want to mobilize the masses. Unlike the other wars, this one could actually be won...

by mrpopo 5y ago

gambiting 5y ago

In fact, if we stopped emitting entirely tomorrow, things would get much worse very quickly for a few years, due to the aerosol masking effect. Basically we're actually emitting so much that our pollution is blocking out some of the heat from the sun - remove the pollution and now we have all of the greenhouse gases we had before still in the atmosphere, but we're getting the full amount of heat from the sun. Explained much better here: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cl3ger/z/evsoc1g https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cl3ger/z/evsoc1g

chaimanmeow 5y ago
If they can make natural gas turbines send soot thousands of feet into the air like coal plants then we could buy ourselves some time. We need soot generators.

Lutger 5y ago

Whether that is true depends on your sense of scale. After we move to zero emissions, it will take only a couple of decades before CO2 will start to drop again, as the biosphere starts absorbing the greenhouse gases. There's some latency in temperature, much more in sealevel rise, but generally it isn't as bad as frequently depicted. I only learned this recently, I used to think we are unavoidably messed up for centuries, but that's really not the case. For my son I believe there's a scenario it will get better, not worse, in his lifetime. Though it's not a scenario I think is likely to happen. I'm not optimistic about our societies willingness and ability to do so, but all action does matter and we definitely have the possibility. Ironically, drastic and massive climate action is also the cheapest thing to do.

Gys 5y ago
The EU ‘proposes to raise the EU's ambition on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030’. At the moment that part of the world is the most ambitious part. > after we move to zero emissions I wonder if that will happen on a planet scale even in your sons lifetime
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  Last night, I watched NGC's "Before the flood". At one point, a director for a local climate action institute in India was interviewed by Leo DiCaprio. She pretty much pointed out that climate change is a social issue in no uncertain terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE As an EU citizen, I applaud the ambitions, but I feel apprehensive at the same time. Regardless how you spin this, affordability is an absolute requirement. For instance, on the consumer side of things, you see this concern expressed by the 'gilets jaunes' movement who were initially road users (commuters, truckers,...) protesting rising fuel prices as those add to the cost of living (whether real or perceived). Low income households can't afford to buy a new fuel efficient or electric car; or renovate their home to be more energy efficient (solar, isolation,...); or even buy groceries with a minimal carbon footprint (cheap food prices translate into externalized costs e.g. meat industry + availability / convenience). Like, over the past few years, several cities have enacted a localized carbon levy for anyone who wants to drive into their city centers. While I'm a proponent of the idea, the net result is that visiting family by car has now become an expensive proposition. Public transport is a partial alternative, but it just doesn't offer the same availability / convenience as a personal vehicle. A concern here is that this levy targets vehicle classes whose emissions are above an established norm. Turns out that a sizable proportion of low income class families living in those cities who find themselves owning a car they can't afford to drive anymore. This was explicitly raised as a policy concern in a parliamentary hearing in late 2020. That's just one concrete example of why climate change is a social issue. The problem raised by the Indian director in the documentary is rooted in the exact same challenge: finding balance between enabling 8 billion people to attain a sustainable, modern living standard while at the same time reducing humanity's reliance on fossil fuels. One also has to understand that in order to attain Western living standards, "the rest of the world" is very much on a trajectory on par with historic social and economic dynamics and changes seen in America and Europe from the late 19th century hence. India and China together constitute about 35% of the global population. As the Indian director rightly questions: How can the West hold a moral high ground at this point in time while not having taken any notable affirmative action over the past 40 years to curb the impact of its own way of living profoundly? Barring any finger pointing towards who does what, the filmmakers also interview the then-mayor of Miami Beach who first-hand faces the consequences of rising sea levels whilst being confronted with party politics. All he can do is install 400 million dollars worth of pumps just to keep his constituency's feet dry for the next 40 to 50 years. He simply ends up stolidly remarking: "The ocean isn't Democratic or Republican. It just keeps rising."

Gravityloss 5y ago

If global human CO2 emissions stopped, the ocean would be absorbing some of the current atmospherical CO2, so it would start going down. The ocean is already currently absorbing, and acidifying as a result. It is not currently in equilibrium. Of course, as it warms, its ability to absorb lessens. Warm water holds less CO2, used as a denialist talking point to say that the CO2 is from the oceans, not from humans. But it actually makes the problem worse. But what's even more important about the nature of this problem that local emissions don't matter. If the US stopped but EU and China etc continued, the US heat dome problem would still go on. That's why this needs to be coordinated internationally. It really matters a lot what the US president and congress does regarding international treaties.

puchatek 5y ago
If the US and Canada managed to cut down on their dramatic per capita emission levels then this could serve as an example to others and give some weight to otherwise empty pleas for change. It would also help accelerate green tech to a point where it can compete with fossil fuels on price line it's happening with solar. Others will follow suit naturally at that point

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

Sadly this kind of message will just result in apathy [in the US]. We've seen from the pandemic that just telling people they're going to die unless they take the most basic health precautions isn't enough to create action. We need a massive campaign of manipulation tactics by trusted peers or they're not going to act to save themselves.

mrpopo 5y ago
Without being that categoric, I agree there's a psychological side of things that needs to be studied. I heard there is a brain mechanism that allows us to "ignore the inevitable". This makes doom-saying predictions a hard sell. The first step to manipulating people is not to say it's manipulation. Call it "marketing" and "lobbying". Everyone does it, climate activists have to do it too :)
puchatek 5y ago
I think you guys need a "War on CO2" if you want to mobilize the masses. Unlike the other wars, this one could actually be won...