5 ms·

Isn't this obvious?

ComputerGuru 5y ago
If we keep publishing studies about it, we can tell the next generation (and ourselves) “we weren’t sitting idly by, we were researching the situation to make sure we understood it.”
codeflo 5y ago
It should be. It’s that and/or recapturing the carbon, purely from a logical perspective. But that doesn’t seem to be obvious to every climate activist I ever discussed with, at least a dozen at this point, who would suggest a zillion interventions and regulations, none of which would keep even a tiny bit of fossil fuel unburnt. The climate doesn’t care whether the carbon is released in America or Africa, or whether it’s done for moral or immoral purposes. Is there a rational climate movement somewhere that one can join? Asking for a friend.
- pastage 5y ago
  Not sure who you are arguing with, all climate activist I talk to strive to zero fossil fuels. Implicitly calling people irrational tends to only get you troll responses.
  - codeflo 5y ago
    That’s the obvious goal, but what kinds of concrete demands do you hear? I’m trying not to set up straw-men, but I only get things like banning combustion cars and banning plastics. None of which would incentivize the Saudis to pump even one less barrel from the ground. The oil would just go elsewhere for a price that might be slightly less, but is still a very large factor of the production costs. If one doesn’t realize that, one might implement lots of policies that “feel good”, are very expensive in terms of standards of living, but have no net effect on the climate.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      How about we start getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels, direct and indirect? That's just one, I've got more. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923668 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923668 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  we should probably retire the term "climate activist". 1) the association with "activism" suggests fringe / special interests and indirectly inserts political friction in deadly serious issues that are truly global and affect all of us. 2) the sustainability issues we are facing are not just about climate (and the obsession with CO2 in particular might turn counterproductive if other risks get under-reported). e.g. it is almost certain that our direction of travel does not leave room for any other major species besides domesticated ones (and those we can't eradicate like viruses and cockroaches). in same vain, our general pollution footprint (plastic, agrichemicals etc) steadily degrades the environment we all live in. sustainability is a broad and mainstream concern and we should reframe it as such if we honestly want to find solutions.
  - codeflo 5y ago
    Or to put it another way, because climate is now a concern that most informed people share, there’s a strategy by some political groups to try to smuggle in other, somewhat less popular demands under the same umbrella: from wildlife protection to deindustrialization to social issues.
    - streamofdigits 5y ago
      The problem is that any important action on climate change triggers immediately some linked social issue. from coal miners, to Amazon rainforest logging, to people resisting wind turbines in their backyard, you name it. These frictions are not trivial to resolve. The bigger issue we face is how to invent functioning (problem solving) politics, both within and between countries
- tjansen 5y ago
  https://www.emergencyreactor.org https://www.emergencyreactor.org ?
- esarbe 5y ago
  How about these guys: https://rebellion.global/ https://rebellion.global/ ?
streamofdigits 5y ago
nope, its not obvious. there is (in principle) the possibility of capturing and storing carbon released from the further burning of fossil fuels (or even already released amouts). according to the paper they include this impact (and a related sensitivity analysis) in the overall conclusion: "A sensitivity analysis on key model assumptions was undertaken to explore the effect on unextractable reserve estimates (Supplementary Information section 3). These include the rate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment..."
belorn 5y ago
Here in Sweden the green party still insist that fossil fuels must be part of the energy grid until future tech can make batteries cheap enough. In their view existing non-fossil fueled alternatives are too expensive to replace fossil fuel. This sentiment get echoed in much the global green movement as it currently exist. If the green movement still favor fossil fuels over costs, then the idea has yet to be imprinted in the general populations brain that fossil fuels must stay in the ground. The message that the green movement need to adapt is that cheaper energy is not worth heating the planet. Keep the fossil fuel in the ground. If we can convince them of this fact then maybe there is some hope of convincing the rest of the world of it too.

Isn't this obvious?

If we keep publishing studies about it, we can tell the next generation (and ourselves) “we weren’t sitting idly by, we were researching the situation to make sure we understood it.”

codeflo 5y ago

It should be. It’s that and/or recapturing the carbon, purely from a logical perspective. But that doesn’t seem to be obvious to every climate activist I ever discussed with, at least a dozen at this point, who would suggest a zillion interventions and regulations, none of which would keep even a tiny bit of fossil fuel unburnt. The climate doesn’t care whether the carbon is released in America or Africa, or whether it’s done for moral or immoral purposes. Is there a rational climate movement somewhere that one can join? Asking for a friend.

pastage 5y ago
Not sure who you are arguing with, all climate activist I talk to strive to zero fossil fuels. Implicitly calling people irrational tends to only get you troll responses.
- codeflo 5y ago
  That’s the obvious goal, but what kinds of concrete demands do you hear? I’m trying not to set up straw-men, but I only get things like banning combustion cars and banning plastics. None of which would incentivize the Saudis to pump even one less barrel from the ground. The oil would just go elsewhere for a price that might be slightly less, but is still a very large factor of the production costs. If one doesn’t realize that, one might implement lots of policies that “feel good”, are very expensive in terms of standards of living, but have no net effect on the climate.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    How about we start getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels, direct and indirect? That's just one, I've got more. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923668 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/923668 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
streamofdigits 5y ago
we should probably retire the term "climate activist". 1) the association with "activism" suggests fringe / special interests and indirectly inserts political friction in deadly serious issues that are truly global and affect all of us. 2) the sustainability issues we are facing are not just about climate (and the obsession with CO2 in particular might turn counterproductive if other risks get under-reported). e.g. it is almost certain that our direction of travel does not leave room for any other major species besides domesticated ones (and those we can't eradicate like viruses and cockroaches). in same vain, our general pollution footprint (plastic, agrichemicals etc) steadily degrades the environment we all live in. sustainability is a broad and mainstream concern and we should reframe it as such if we honestly want to find solutions.
- codeflo 5y ago
  Or to put it another way, because climate is now a concern that most informed people share, there’s a strategy by some political groups to try to smuggle in other, somewhat less popular demands under the same umbrella: from wildlife protection to deindustrialization to social issues.
  - streamofdigits 5y ago
    The problem is that any important action on climate change triggers immediately some linked social issue. from coal miners, to Amazon rainforest logging, to people resisting wind turbines in their backyard, you name it. These frictions are not trivial to resolve. The bigger issue we face is how to invent functioning (problem solving) politics, both within and between countries
tjansen 5y ago
https://www.emergencyreactor.org https://www.emergencyreactor.org ?
esarbe 5y ago
How about these guys: https://rebellion.global/ https://rebellion.global/ ?

streamofdigits 5y ago

nope, its not obvious. there is (in principle) the possibility of capturing and storing carbon released from the further burning of fossil fuels (or even already released amouts). according to the paper they include this impact (and a related sensitivity analysis) in the overall conclusion: "A sensitivity analysis on key model assumptions was undertaken to explore the effect on unextractable reserve estimates (Supplementary Information section 3). These include the rate of carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment..."

belorn 5y ago

Here in Sweden the green party still insist that fossil fuels must be part of the energy grid until future tech can make batteries cheap enough. In their view existing non-fossil fueled alternatives are too expensive to replace fossil fuel. This sentiment get echoed in much the global green movement as it currently exist. If the green movement still favor fossil fuels over costs, then the idea has yet to be imprinted in the general populations brain that fossil fuels must stay in the ground. The message that the green movement need to adapt is that cheaper energy is not worth heating the planet. Keep the fossil fuel in the ground. If we can convince them of this fact then maybe there is some hope of convincing the rest of the world of it too.