7 ms·

> It's pointing out that there is no realistic scenario in which western countries can prevent CO2 from getting to dangerous levels. Sure there is. We've had t

> It's pointing out that there is no realistic scenario in which western countries can prevent CO2 from getting to dangerous levels. Sure there is. We've had two experiments where we saw this happen: April 2020 - for a very short time when Western economies took a major hit, emissions dipped quite substantially. In 2008 - The global financial crisis, which did impact the world, started in the US and again caused on of the only major notable dips in emissions we've seen. It's very clear that US consumption and economic activity is directly tied to GHG emissions globally. If just the US had decided to remain in our April 2020 depressed economic state, and cooled from there, we would have seen a downward trend in emissions. Maybe you would argue that economic shrinking is not "realistic" (in which case we are most certainly doomed, unless we run out of fossil fuels before we cross certain boundaries). The common argument is people won't tolerate a radical change in lifestyles... but that change is coming either way. However extreme the changes need to prevent catastrophic climate change, they are certainly less extreme then letting climate change run it's course. I personally believe we will not chose this path, but don't pretend that this path doesn't exist. As the center of the global economy the United States fully has the capability to reduce global emissions. Alternatively if we run into a economic crisis of unprecedented scale, which looks reasonably possible, we'll also see reduction in emissions without having to worry about "choosing" this path.

epistasis 5y ago
> It's very clear that US consumption and economic activity is directly tied to GHG emissions globally. This is true today, but it will not be true in the future. In the past and today, it was the contention both of fossil fuel interests and of degrowthers that emissions and economic activity are inseparable. However, we are showing that that's not true. If you look back since 2008, sure, the big economic contractions showed big drops in emissions. But also, with economic expansion, we are lowering emissions, just at a lower rate. And in fact, the true decoupling of GHG and GDP will involve a spectacular amount of economic activity. A huge number of jobs for everything from the obvious like deploying wind turbines and batteries and solar panels and expanding grid distribution and transmission, to less obvious stuff like insulating homes and installing heat pumps in place of natural gas. There is another path, with massive economic growth, that results in complete decoupling of GHG and GDP. This is the easiest path in terms of lifestyle changes, but the most difficult path in terms of upsetting entrenched powerful interests.
- baron_harkonnen 5y ago
  > There is another path, with massive economic growth, that results in complete decoupling of GHG and GDP. This is the easiest path in terms of lifestyle changes, but the most difficult path in terms of upsetting entrenched powerful interests. People have been fantasizing about this my entire life and all we've seen in more environmental destruction, and accelerated GHG emissions. I remember hearing things like this all the time in 2006 when an Inconvenient Truth was big. At the time I thought "that sounds reasonable and the only test will be time". Here we are, likely already past some crucial boundary conditions with no immediate signs that we'll achieve any of the new targets we have set (since we've already missed all the old ones). > This is true today, but it will not be true in the future. How much time do you think we have? In 2000 maybe this was a reasonable argument, but even if emissions dropped to zero today we still have already signed up for plenty of climate change.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    > all we've seen in more environmental destruction, and accelerated GHG emissions That is not all we have seen. US emissions are declining per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit... Despite vigorous GDP growth, which is showing the decoupling of GDP and emissions. (Total US emissions have also dropped over the past 15 years, but I am having trouble finding a clean graph of that quickly) I do not believe, and scientists do not believe, that we are past help, or that we have locked in so much change that everything is hopeless. See, for example, this interview: https://www.cleaningup.live/ep49-johan-rockstrom-pushing-planetary-boundaries/ https://www.cleaningup.live/ep49-johan-rockstrom-pushing-pla... We know that RCP8.5 isn't going to happen. But we also know that our actions now have big big consequences. We have a huge opportunity to change our future, right now. That window of opportunity is closing quickly. Everything we do it reduce emissions now will make the future a much much better place. We really do have the opportunity to change our behavior and keep a planet that is as welcoming to us as it is today. If you honestly don't believe this, I suggest skimming the (massive) SR15 report form the IPCC. It's getting out of date in terms of the technology available today that wasn't when it was written, but it should provide you with a lot of hope and a lot of reason to take action now: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
mdoms 5y ago
You.... you know Covid happened outside of USA too, right?

epistasis 5y ago

> It's very clear that US consumption and economic activity is directly tied to GHG emissions globally. This is true today, but it will not be true in the future. In the past and today, it was the contention both of fossil fuel interests and of degrowthers that emissions and economic activity are inseparable. However, we are showing that that's not true. If you look back since 2008, sure, the big economic contractions showed big drops in emissions. But also, with economic expansion, we are lowering emissions, just at a lower rate. And in fact, the true decoupling of GHG and GDP will involve a spectacular amount of economic activity. A huge number of jobs for everything from the obvious like deploying wind turbines and batteries and solar panels and expanding grid distribution and transmission, to less obvious stuff like insulating homes and installing heat pumps in place of natural gas. There is another path, with massive economic growth, that results in complete decoupling of GHG and GDP. This is the easiest path in terms of lifestyle changes, but the most difficult path in terms of upsetting entrenched powerful interests.

baron_harkonnen 5y ago
> There is another path, with massive economic growth, that results in complete decoupling of GHG and GDP. This is the easiest path in terms of lifestyle changes, but the most difficult path in terms of upsetting entrenched powerful interests. People have been fantasizing about this my entire life and all we've seen in more environmental destruction, and accelerated GHG emissions. I remember hearing things like this all the time in 2006 when an Inconvenient Truth was big. At the time I thought "that sounds reasonable and the only test will be time". Here we are, likely already past some crucial boundary conditions with no immediate signs that we'll achieve any of the new targets we have set (since we've already missed all the old ones). > This is true today, but it will not be true in the future. How much time do you think we have? In 2000 maybe this was a reasonable argument, but even if emissions dropped to zero today we still have already signed up for plenty of climate change.
- epistasis 5y ago
  > all we've seen in more environmental destruction, and accelerated GHG emissions That is not all we have seen. US emissions are declining per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit... Despite vigorous GDP growth, which is showing the decoupling of GDP and emissions. (Total US emissions have also dropped over the past 15 years, but I am having trouble finding a clean graph of that quickly) I do not believe, and scientists do not believe, that we are past help, or that we have locked in so much change that everything is hopeless. See, for example, this interview: https://www.cleaningup.live/ep49-johan-rockstrom-pushing-planetary-boundaries/ https://www.cleaningup.live/ep49-johan-rockstrom-pushing-pla... We know that RCP8.5 isn't going to happen. But we also know that our actions now have big big consequences. We have a huge opportunity to change our future, right now. That window of opportunity is closing quickly. Everything we do it reduce emissions now will make the future a much much better place. We really do have the opportunity to change our behavior and keep a planet that is as welcoming to us as it is today. If you honestly don't believe this, I suggest skimming the (massive) SR15 report form the IPCC. It's getting out of date in terms of the technology available today that wasn't when it was written, but it should provide you with a lot of hope and a lot of reason to take action now: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

mdoms 5y ago

You.... you know Covid happened outside of USA too, right?