5 ms·

What I take from that news and https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-asteroid-bennu.html https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-a

What I take from that news and https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-asteroid-bennu.html https://www.livescience.com/china-rocket-fleet-divert-astero... is that Nations are more ready to tackle a single planet killer event with a slim chance of happening than tackling climate change. Also, with the trajectory we are on regarding climate change, there might not be the resources needed or a humanity capable to carry on this task of destroying/diverting the asteroid in 2300.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
If I can hazard a reason for why this is: an asteroid heading to earth is a problem you can project manage your way out of, you can allocate funds to a program and have dedicated professionals work in isolation to address it. Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society, it will change who the winners and losers are, which affects politicians and their donors.
- kdmdmsk 5y ago
  > Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society This is a massive understatement. If the claims of climate activists are to be believed, the only way to beat climate change is to have the entire industrialized world return to a pre-industrialized state[0]. Since not everyone will want to adopt the living standards of Zambia[0], effecting such a change also would inevitably involve killing anyone who refused. Every American would need to cut their energy usage by 90%[0] or up against the wall! This is about a lot more than the politicians and their donors, this is about reversing the clock on progress two hundred years 0 https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/ https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-america...
- beebmam 5y ago
  Climate change has a very simple and efficient solution, that can even be popular: a Carbon tax, where all revenue generated from it is redistributed through a UBI or negative income tax. Carbon taxes are the best economic solution, and UBIs are extremely popular
  - jpgvm 5y ago
    Popular with the people. Not popular with the interests that oppose climate change or the politicians they own.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.
    - alpha_squared 5y ago
      With an increase of working from home for white-collar jobs, this means that those who drive the most will have their fuel costs increased. They'll typically be commuters and delivery vehicles (e.g. trucks, retail). While some of those may make a comfortable income for their locale, a sizeable portion likely don't. A tax like this is then borne largely by the economically disadvantaged. I'd support a tax like this if there were greener options with similar or cheaper cost to use for the riders (e.g. rail, busses). Unfortunately, the infrastructure just isn't there yet for a vast majority of the US.
- varelse 5y ago
  Except that's not how it's going to play out. I suspect it plays out by China going fully nuclear and renewable in the next decade. They'll make mistakes, they'll kill people in accidents, but they will get there. That will eliminate the most idiotic talking point in the world against the West doing anything about climate change so there's that. But also, China having done so, the West will undergo a horrendous sense of FOMO, and dig itself out of its own ditch to catch up. Without a competitor, western nations are just crabs in the crab pot, pulling each other deeper into the increasingly boiling water IMO.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    That would be an interesting turn of events. China currently has a goal of being carbon neutral by 2060. Going full nuclear would accelerate progress on that goal. However, even with that commitment, China is bringing more fossil fuel energy online, instead of taking it offline [1]. What information do you have that indicates China will pursue faster climate change mitigation? [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-cranks-up-carbon-intensive-projects-climate-crisis-grows-research-shows-2021-08-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-...
    - varelse 5y ago
      That makes sense. They need that electricity now not later. But as soon as they have an alternative* they will decommission. They continue to have a lower per capita footprint than the West. And I could be wrong but it would be consistent with everything else I've seen them do in the past decade - I spent part of the year over there every year for the past decade until the pandemic and that's just my take. YMMV. *https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclear-reactor https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclea...
      - coryrc 5y ago
        There are two Chinas. One has comparable per-capita emissions as the US. The other is very poor. They have moved hundreds of millions from the latter to the former. They have hundreds of millions left to go and are making excellent progress.
bpodgursky 5y ago
2300 is a very long time way. Even trying to estimate what resources humanity will have available in 2300 is sort of silly; we'll either be able to leisurely atomize it, or will helplessly stare at it from our campfires. Theres' not a lot in-between IMO.
ipspam 5y ago
Humans won't be the victim of climate change. Animals will be. Humans are capable of taking care of ourselves at the expense of everything else. Astroid impacts have the potential to wipe out life as we know it. Two totally different threat levels.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

If I can hazard a reason for why this is: an asteroid heading to earth is a problem you can project manage your way out of, you can allocate funds to a program and have dedicated professionals work in isolation to address it. Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society, it will change who the winners and losers are, which affects politicians and their donors.

kdmdmsk 5y ago
> Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society This is a massive understatement. If the claims of climate activists are to be believed, the only way to beat climate change is to have the entire industrialized world return to a pre-industrialized state[0]. Since not everyone will want to adopt the living standards of Zambia[0], effecting such a change also would inevitably involve killing anyone who refused. Every American would need to cut their energy usage by 90%[0] or up against the wall! This is about a lot more than the politicians and their donors, this is about reversing the clock on progress two hundred years 0 https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/ https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-america...
beebmam 5y ago
Climate change has a very simple and efficient solution, that can even be popular: a Carbon tax, where all revenue generated from it is redistributed through a UBI or negative income tax. Carbon taxes are the best economic solution, and UBIs are extremely popular
- jpgvm 5y ago
  Popular with the people. Not popular with the interests that oppose climate change or the politicians they own.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.
  - alpha_squared 5y ago
    With an increase of working from home for white-collar jobs, this means that those who drive the most will have their fuel costs increased. They'll typically be commuters and delivery vehicles (e.g. trucks, retail). While some of those may make a comfortable income for their locale, a sizeable portion likely don't. A tax like this is then borne largely by the economically disadvantaged. I'd support a tax like this if there were greener options with similar or cheaper cost to use for the riders (e.g. rail, busses). Unfortunately, the infrastructure just isn't there yet for a vast majority of the US.
varelse 5y ago
Except that's not how it's going to play out. I suspect it plays out by China going fully nuclear and renewable in the next decade. They'll make mistakes, they'll kill people in accidents, but they will get there. That will eliminate the most idiotic talking point in the world against the West doing anything about climate change so there's that. But also, China having done so, the West will undergo a horrendous sense of FOMO, and dig itself out of its own ditch to catch up. Without a competitor, western nations are just crabs in the crab pot, pulling each other deeper into the increasingly boiling water IMO.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  That would be an interesting turn of events. China currently has a goal of being carbon neutral by 2060. Going full nuclear would accelerate progress on that goal. However, even with that commitment, China is bringing more fossil fuel energy online, instead of taking it offline [1]. What information do you have that indicates China will pursue faster climate change mitigation? [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-cranks-up-carbon-intensive-projects-climate-crisis-grows-research-shows-2021-08-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-...
  - varelse 5y ago
    That makes sense. They need that electricity now not later. But as soon as they have an alternative* they will decommission. They continue to have a lower per capita footprint than the West. And I could be wrong but it would be consistent with everything else I've seen them do in the past decade - I spent part of the year over there every year for the past decade until the pandemic and that's just my take. YMMV. *https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclear-reactor https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclea...
    - coryrc 5y ago
      There are two Chinas. One has comparable per-capita emissions as the US. The other is very poor. They have moved hundreds of millions from the latter to the former. They have hundreds of millions left to go and are making excellent progress.

bpodgursky 5y ago

2300 is a very long time way. Even trying to estimate what resources humanity will have available in 2300 is sort of silly; we'll either be able to leisurely atomize it, or will helplessly stare at it from our campfires. Theres' not a lot in-between IMO.

ipspam 5y ago

Humans won't be the victim of climate change. Animals will be. Humans are capable of taking care of ourselves at the expense of everything else. Astroid impacts have the potential to wipe out life as we know it. Two totally different threat levels.