3 ms·

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,

by 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."
  - mrpopo 5y ago
    Western living standards (especially American) are stupidly high. Just talk to average people. Just today, I heard one person say they keep the AC on 18C all day because they don't like sweating, one person bought a bigger car to give more space for their dog, one person said she keeps the hot water on in the sink to reduce the hot water flow and regulate the shower temperature more easily. People in the West need to reconnect with reality, and people in developing countries need to look up to more meaningful ways of life.
  - samus 5y ago
    We are all sitting in the same boat here. Fingerpointing to the West is insincere because it's the same attitude the West had when nobody cared about the environment yet, but directed outwards. It's also not helpful at all. Developing countries have to also somehow take part in the climate change mitigation efforts, else the West will have trouble convincing their citizens to accept climate change mitigation policies, and the latter will be right in the assumption that their contribution won't matter. And you have a good point, but eventually, also people in the West will have to accept that climate change will impact them somehow. Sealevels will continue to rise, weather extrems will become worse, viable farmland will become more rare, and overall living cost will rise even without an increase in taxation. Carbon tax is just a tool to account for climate change in a capitalist framework. Increased taxation on obsolete and inefficient technologies should be offset by deductions and subsidies. If the carbon tax becomes burgeoning, reducing or dropping the VAT could be worthwile.
- weego 5y ago
  No because the method of achieving that goal is to push the worst CO2 generating processes out to less privileged countries and then blaming them for it. It's just carbon credits with more xenophobia.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The EU has a massive trade surplus, they actually manufacture quite a bit internally including many CO2 heavy industries, they are also importing vast amounts of fossil fuels. Germany was running a larger total trade surplus than China up to 2018, exporting manufacturing isn’t part of the plan.
  - totony 5y ago
    CO2 recycling technologies might make this easier.
- FerretFred 5y ago
  2030 seems to be a magical date that is oft quoted. Is it when something will finally happen, or will it just be the date by which the current crop of CEOs and politicians retire (to their secretly built climate-controlled bunkers?
Blatti 5y ago
We talk already about reducing our footprint but it's not going down yet. How long will it even take for us to do less talking and more reducing? 5 years? 10? Will we discover that the big co2 emitter (USA, china) might even get further behind and my country is on track (Germany)? Will the normal and valid economical growth of countries like china eat all co2 winnings for x decades until it reaches a peak? Or will we see catastrophic events which will erode our society peace by peace? In Germany the flood destroyed bridges and parts of a Autobahn. Deutsche Bahn Said that's the worst infrastructure impairment they ever head. Will we be able to keep our existing infrastructure? All the trees we are loosing to fires and drought how critical are they? Do we already have calculated in all of this? I read last year that they now incorporate the Siberian Methan and co2 emissions from the "permafrost". How fragile is our supply chain? Remember the toilet paper shortage. Those questions are stressing me out sometimes and I do plan do become more robust through getting out of the city as there is not much you can do when sitting in your flat without tools and stuff.
pmoriarty 5y ago
There's also the possibility of trying geoengineering projects like dumping a lot of iron powder in to the oceans.

by Lutger 5y ago

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."
- mrpopo 5y ago
  Western living standards (especially American) are stupidly high. Just talk to average people. Just today, I heard one person say they keep the AC on 18C all day because they don't like sweating, one person bought a bigger car to give more space for their dog, one person said she keeps the hot water on in the sink to reduce the hot water flow and regulate the shower temperature more easily. People in the West need to reconnect with reality, and people in developing countries need to look up to more meaningful ways of life.
- samus 5y ago
  We are all sitting in the same boat here. Fingerpointing to the West is insincere because it's the same attitude the West had when nobody cared about the environment yet, but directed outwards. It's also not helpful at all. Developing countries have to also somehow take part in the climate change mitigation efforts, else the West will have trouble convincing their citizens to accept climate change mitigation policies, and the latter will be right in the assumption that their contribution won't matter. And you have a good point, but eventually, also people in the West will have to accept that climate change will impact them somehow. Sealevels will continue to rise, weather extrems will become worse, viable farmland will become more rare, and overall living cost will rise even without an increase in taxation. Carbon tax is just a tool to account for climate change in a capitalist framework. Increased taxation on obsolete and inefficient technologies should be offset by deductions and subsidies. If the carbon tax becomes burgeoning, reducing or dropping the VAT could be worthwile.
weego 5y ago
No because the method of achieving that goal is to push the worst CO2 generating processes out to less privileged countries and then blaming them for it. It's just carbon credits with more xenophobia.
- Retric 5y ago
  The EU has a massive trade surplus, they actually manufacture quite a bit internally including many CO2 heavy industries, they are also importing vast amounts of fossil fuels. Germany was running a larger total trade surplus than China up to 2018, exporting manufacturing isn’t part of the plan.
- totony 5y ago
  CO2 recycling technologies might make this easier.
FerretFred 5y ago
2030 seems to be a magical date that is oft quoted. Is it when something will finally happen, or will it just be the date by which the current crop of CEOs and politicians retire (to their secretly built climate-controlled bunkers?

Blatti 5y ago

We talk already about reducing our footprint but it's not going down yet. How long will it even take for us to do less talking and more reducing? 5 years? 10? Will we discover that the big co2 emitter (USA, china) might even get further behind and my country is on track (Germany)? Will the normal and valid economical growth of countries like china eat all co2 winnings for x decades until it reaches a peak? Or will we see catastrophic events which will erode our society peace by peace? In Germany the flood destroyed bridges and parts of a Autobahn. Deutsche Bahn Said that's the worst infrastructure impairment they ever head. Will we be able to keep our existing infrastructure? All the trees we are loosing to fires and drought how critical are they? Do we already have calculated in all of this? I read last year that they now incorporate the Siberian Methan and co2 emissions from the "permafrost". How fragile is our supply chain? Remember the toilet paper shortage. Those questions are stressing me out sometimes and I do plan do become more robust through getting out of the city as there is not much you can do when sitting in your flat without tools and stuff.

pmoriarty 5y ago

There's also the possibility of trying geoengineering projects like dumping a lot of iron powder in to the oceans.