8 ms·

> 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 change

> 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/
- baron_harkonnen 5y ago
  > US emissions are declining per capita Because we have continually outsourced our emissions to China while still reaping the financial benefits of expoiting resources in those countries. I know there are studies that try to account for this but they still fail to look at the bigger picture of resources we have outsourced. Cheap and large scale manufacturing in China has meant enormous benefits for the US economy. We see a decoupling of GDP and energy because we are playing tricks with accounting. > We really do have the opportunity to change our behavior and keep a planet that is as welcoming to us as it is today. First we are absolutely locked into increasing global warming from emissions, so we have without question given up on a planet as welcoming as today. We do have an opportunity to change our behavior, I have repeatedly said that, but that means actually reducing fossil fuel usage, globally and immediately. As I have said, the US can reduce global emissions because we have seen the US do this twice: April 2020 and 2008. > a lot of hope and a lot of reason to take action now There's reason to take action now, but since you won't even accept the notion that you might have to reduce your standard of living, at least until renewables catch up again, means we are not going to change our path. I had these exact conversations in 2006, and very similar ones in the 1990s (though people were less sure of the extreme risks then). The IPCC reports have been for years considered by many to be far too optimistic, and again those people have been proven correct over and over again (until recently they didn't consider positive feed backs and also assume scalable CCS). At what point would you admit you are wrong? I'll admit I'm wrong if we see three years of decreasing global emissions starting this year and reduced global emissions by 20% in the next 5 years. These aren't enough to get us to our required goals, but if I see this I'll still be shocked and admit I've been too skeptical. Currently I believe this would only happen with a catastrophic financial crisis (which may be the only way we can avoid climate catastrophe).
  - epistasis 5y ago
    > Because we have continually outsourced our emissions to China while still reaping the financial benefits of expoiting resources in those countries. That's simply not true. The chart I linked is CO2 accounting based on consumption, not US production, it takes into account Chinese emissions for US consumption. > There's reason to take action now, but since you won't even accept the notion that you might have to reduce your standard of living, Sorry, what? What do you know about what I want to do? My preferred life would be considered a "reduced standard of living" to many Americans, because I want to live car-free in a walkable neighborhood. > At what point will you admit you are wrong? When there's evidence that a position I have taken is wrong. Start sending me data!! Will you admit that emissions have decreased, even accounting for moving production to China? Will you admit that we have cleaner energy sources ready to deploy that will replace fossil fuels, if we choose to do so? Will you admit that we can develop alternatives to industrial processes that generate non-fossil-fuel emissions? Will you admit that we can switch disastrous land use policies that reduce the ability of the ecosystem to sequester CO2? These are all possible without a drastic reduction in the quality of life. The question is how quickly we can make that transition. At this stage in the game, nihilism is as bad as denialism. We need to make drastic drastic change, and I am doing so in my personal life, but personal action is no substitute for changing the system.

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/

baron_harkonnen 5y ago
> US emissions are declining per capita Because we have continually outsourced our emissions to China while still reaping the financial benefits of expoiting resources in those countries. I know there are studies that try to account for this but they still fail to look at the bigger picture of resources we have outsourced. Cheap and large scale manufacturing in China has meant enormous benefits for the US economy. We see a decoupling of GDP and energy because we are playing tricks with accounting. > We really do have the opportunity to change our behavior and keep a planet that is as welcoming to us as it is today. First we are absolutely locked into increasing global warming from emissions, so we have without question given up on a planet as welcoming as today. We do have an opportunity to change our behavior, I have repeatedly said that, but that means actually reducing fossil fuel usage, globally and immediately. As I have said, the US can reduce global emissions because we have seen the US do this twice: April 2020 and 2008. > a lot of hope and a lot of reason to take action now There's reason to take action now, but since you won't even accept the notion that you might have to reduce your standard of living, at least until renewables catch up again, means we are not going to change our path. I had these exact conversations in 2006, and very similar ones in the 1990s (though people were less sure of the extreme risks then). The IPCC reports have been for years considered by many to be far too optimistic, and again those people have been proven correct over and over again (until recently they didn't consider positive feed backs and also assume scalable CCS). At what point would you admit you are wrong? I'll admit I'm wrong if we see three years of decreasing global emissions starting this year and reduced global emissions by 20% in the next 5 years. These aren't enough to get us to our required goals, but if I see this I'll still be shocked and admit I've been too skeptical. Currently I believe this would only happen with a catastrophic financial crisis (which may be the only way we can avoid climate catastrophe).
- epistasis 5y ago
  > Because we have continually outsourced our emissions to China while still reaping the financial benefits of expoiting resources in those countries. That's simply not true. The chart I linked is CO2 accounting based on consumption, not US production, it takes into account Chinese emissions for US consumption. > There's reason to take action now, but since you won't even accept the notion that you might have to reduce your standard of living, Sorry, what? What do you know about what I want to do? My preferred life would be considered a "reduced standard of living" to many Americans, because I want to live car-free in a walkable neighborhood. > At what point will you admit you are wrong? When there's evidence that a position I have taken is wrong. Start sending me data!! Will you admit that emissions have decreased, even accounting for moving production to China? Will you admit that we have cleaner energy sources ready to deploy that will replace fossil fuels, if we choose to do so? Will you admit that we can develop alternatives to industrial processes that generate non-fossil-fuel emissions? Will you admit that we can switch disastrous land use policies that reduce the ability of the ecosystem to sequester CO2? These are all possible without a drastic reduction in the quality of life. The question is how quickly we can make that transition. At this stage in the game, nihilism is as bad as denialism. We need to make drastic drastic change, and I am doing so in my personal life, but personal action is no substitute for changing the system.