4 ms·

There are 4 broad scenarios according to which (or a combination thereof) the climate emergency will develop: 1) In a giant case of prisoners' dilemma, the hum

by sershe 5y ago

There are 4 broad scenarios according to which (or a combination thereof) the climate emergency will develop: 1) In a giant case of prisoners' dilemma, the humanity will coordinate worldwide and rise to the occasion, massively cut emissions, tax carbon, build out renewables, etc. 2) There will be massive technological breakthru-s in carbon capture and/or energy production and/or geo-engineering (and I am not talking about things like nuclear, where the tech is mostly there but the rising-to-the-occasion bit is missing). 3) Somehow, the models and projections would turn out to be overblown, or the more mellow of the serious models that project we lose N% GDP or whatever would turn out to be correct. 4) We're doomed, doomed! Given the humanity's realistic record with (1) and (3)... either fusion works, or [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRHOcWj--cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRHOcWj--cs

yosito 5y ago
I think the most likely scenario is 5) The climate changes, and humanity adapts to live in the new climate.
- sershe 5y ago
  That is somewhere between 3 and 4.
- estebank 5y ago
  Humanity adapts and carries on. People are fucked.
nefitty 5y ago
Thanks for distilling the situation so well. I’ve been stuck obsessing over the doomsday scenario. It’s easy to forget there’s other possible futures that might lessen my anxiety and push me to make certain helpful personal and career choices.
concordDance 5y ago
My money is on space sunshades. While it would cost tens of trillions to make a sunshade by launching from Earth, making sunshades and launching them from the moon should be viable thanks to the lack of atmosphere and low gravity. Assuming that a few million tons of mass is enough to set up a space sunshade manufacturing station (and railgun launch rails) it should only cost a few trillion dollars, cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions.
- hh3k0 5y ago
  Stratospheric aerosol injection is cheaper and we've got plenty of data for that, as it mimics how volcanic eruptions cool the earth.
  - The5thElephant 5y ago
    Aerosols are far harder to control and to predict harmful secondary/tertiary effects than simply reducing amount of sunlight in a particular area.
- techbio 5y ago
  Has anyone considered altering wave patterns to increase ocean surface reflectance? Like a Fresnel lens magnification in reverse.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Whether it's 2050, 2060, or 2070 for going carbon neutral does not actually matter that much. It's one of the main points people are haggling about right now (e.g. in Glasgow at the climate change conference in a few months). Which will feature a lot of #1 enabled by #2. How good or bad our models are right now is going to be of interest to historians only (i.e. #3). We'll dodge extinction but will likely deal with the aftermath of our past actions for centuries regardless. But getting to carbon neutral seems to get us to a stage where we might manage. The point is that we can call a date for this at all at this point because things are happening that are going to make that a reality. That's because of technical breakthroughs (i.e. scenario #2) that mostly already happened. And more is on the way. So any conservative date policicans call, might end up moving to an earlier date when that happens. Whether you consider nuclear/fusion part of this progress is a bit of a political topic. My point is that we'll be fine with or without that happening. The "we're doomed unless we bet everything on technology X" scenario is basically just a variant of #4. Actually, we're just dealing with the logistical aftermath of the results of these technical breakthroughs not being ubiquitous yet. But technically there's no other reason to keep burning stuff (coal, wood, gas, peat, etc.) other than that we are dependent on burning lots of it with our existing and increasingly more expensive to operate infrastructure. It's cheaper to not do that already but it just takes time to get ourselves there. 30-40 years sounds about right for getting that done. Fixing our infrastructure is much less dependent on new technical breakthroughs (e.g. fusion or nuclear) than it is on simply doing more of the (already profitable) things that are being done anyway. Whether it is building gigafactories for batteries, building off shore wind farms, or deploying solar; it all seems to have decent ROI and popular with investors. Unlocking more capital for this is actually becoming easy and uncontroversial. If you separate the moralism and rhetoric from the economics, even the most conservative climate change deniers would not mind some cheap solar on their roof, lower electricity bills, or a ridiculous electrical ford truck with low cost and operational expenses. Paying less for more is a great way to drive progress and incentivize the masses. That's not to say that further breakthroughs aren't needed. They are, and they will happen as well. And IMHO speed up the agenda here.

by sershe 5y ago

yosito 5y ago

I think the most likely scenario is 5) The climate changes, and humanity adapts to live in the new climate.

sershe 5y ago
That is somewhere between 3 and 4.
estebank 5y ago
Humanity adapts and carries on. People are fucked.

nefitty 5y ago

Thanks for distilling the situation so well. I’ve been stuck obsessing over the doomsday scenario. It’s easy to forget there’s other possible futures that might lessen my anxiety and push me to make certain helpful personal and career choices.

concordDance 5y ago

My money is on space sunshades. While it would cost tens of trillions to make a sunshade by launching from Earth, making sunshades and launching them from the moon should be viable thanks to the lack of atmosphere and low gravity. Assuming that a few million tons of mass is enough to set up a space sunshade manufacturing station (and railgun launch rails) it should only cost a few trillion dollars, cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions.

hh3k0 5y ago
Stratospheric aerosol injection is cheaper and we've got plenty of data for that, as it mimics how volcanic eruptions cool the earth.
- The5thElephant 5y ago
  Aerosols are far harder to control and to predict harmful secondary/tertiary effects than simply reducing amount of sunlight in a particular area.
techbio 5y ago
Has anyone considered altering wave patterns to increase ocean surface reflectance? Like a Fresnel lens magnification in reverse.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Whether it's 2050, 2060, or 2070 for going carbon neutral does not actually matter that much. It's one of the main points people are haggling about right now (e.g. in Glasgow at the climate change conference in a few months). Which will feature a lot of #1 enabled by #2. How good or bad our models are right now is going to be of interest to historians only (i.e. #3). We'll dodge extinction but will likely deal with the aftermath of our past actions for centuries regardless. But getting to carbon neutral seems to get us to a stage where we might manage. The point is that we can call a date for this at all at this point because things are happening that are going to make that a reality. That's because of technical breakthroughs (i.e. scenario #2) that mostly already happened. And more is on the way. So any conservative date policicans call, might end up moving to an earlier date when that happens. Whether you consider nuclear/fusion part of this progress is a bit of a political topic. My point is that we'll be fine with or without that happening. The "we're doomed unless we bet everything on technology X" scenario is basically just a variant of #4. Actually, we're just dealing with the logistical aftermath of the results of these technical breakthroughs not being ubiquitous yet. But technically there's no other reason to keep burning stuff (coal, wood, gas, peat, etc.) other than that we are dependent on burning lots of it with our existing and increasingly more expensive to operate infrastructure. It's cheaper to not do that already but it just takes time to get ourselves there. 30-40 years sounds about right for getting that done. Fixing our infrastructure is much less dependent on new technical breakthroughs (e.g. fusion or nuclear) than it is on simply doing more of the (already profitable) things that are being done anyway. Whether it is building gigafactories for batteries, building off shore wind farms, or deploying solar; it all seems to have decent ROI and popular with investors. Unlocking more capital for this is actually becoming easy and uncontroversial. If you separate the moralism and rhetoric from the economics, even the most conservative climate change deniers would not mind some cheap solar on their roof, lower electricity bills, or a ridiculous electrical ford truck with low cost and operational expenses. Paying less for more is a great way to drive progress and incentivize the masses. That's not to say that further breakthroughs aren't needed. They are, and they will happen as well. And IMHO speed up the agenda here.