7 ms·

Is fatalism (in an all too unfortunately literal sense) all we have left? When an official says "unless governments credibly commit to immediate, massive decre

Is fatalism (in an all too unfortunately literal sense) all we have left? When an official says "unless governments credibly commit to immediate, massive decreases in emissions, we're screwed," it just amounts to "we're screwed." Encouraging and striving for some radical new technological innovation is all we can do.

RandomLensman 5y ago
No. We just cannot sustain panic continuously. I am confident that eventually a mix of decarbonization, mitigation of climate change effects, and some sort of geoengineering will avoid any apocalypse.
- scarmig 5y ago
  The point is that by all measures decarbonization isn't happening. Mitigations are a critical part of any solution, but expensive and hacky. And geoengineering is exactly the kind of radical new technology we might need, but the key point is that it doesn't exist right now and might not ever be practical.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Decarbonization is happening/starting to happen - I actually see it taking off. It is an S-curve, though, so right now it looks tiny, but that will change.
    - moistly 5y ago
      Decarbonization needs to sequester it as fast—actually, much faster—than we’ve been taking it out. 75 million barrels per day. IMO that is not attainable.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    We need to turn the experience of daily life into something far worse than the most draconian COVID lockdowns to even put a dent in this problem. Forever.
    - junon 5y ago
      This is my viewpoint as well. People are all talk about "should be doing" but when it comes down to "alright, you're going to have to sacrifice some comfort" all action ceases.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        I don't think this is so much people, as corporations and the politicians they own. Even economic stagnation is seen as abhorrent, when in fact we will have to undergo economic shrinkage to even contain the problem. The entire world economy will have to start shrinking for a few decades while we replace all fossil fuels with other things, and then we can try to get back to growth. But this is absolutely not acceptable in any mainstream economic discussion, even from the left, and absolutely counter to the very definition of a for-profit corporation. Even slowing down growth is seen as 'too risky', while the world burns. Better we buy new iPhones every month to help propel the economy.
    - commandlinefan 5y ago
      Well... you and I will, anyway. It won't apply to politicians.
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    Not saying it's a good idea, but geoengineering is currently both technically and economically feasible. It would be easy for e.g. the United States to reduce the total incoming sunlight by enough to counteract global warming. The issue is that doing so will have widespread unknown issues on the planet. For example- launching enough thin, reflective mylar film to the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point to reduce incoming solar radiation by ~0.1% would take about 500 Falcon Heavy launches (highest capacity rocket currently available). This would take several years and around $100 billion. Once Starship is ready and in use, this would go way down. $100 billion and several years is practically nothing for the US, China, or one of several other countries with the capability to do this. Obvious downsides include denying the use of the L1 Lagrange point to human use permanently, eventual degradation of the sun shield as solar wind pushes pieces of film out of place, and of course possible mass famine and plant die-off due to lower solar radiation.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Check it. Teller, E., Wood, L., & Hyde, R. (1996). Global warming and ice ages: I. Prospects for physics-based modulation of global change (No. UCRL-JC--128715). Lawrence Livermore National Lab..
- silisili 5y ago
  Agreed, but I quit saying as much, as often here you are met with disdain for saying such things, and that you are creating distractions. TBF I do see both sides - by saying 'ah we'll figure it out' it makes it seem like it's not a huge issue(it is). But I do think we will figure it out, even if it means vaporizing the sky to block the sun while carbon increases.
RicoElectrico 5y ago
The problem lies much more in the realm of politics, rather than technology and science. We opted to wage pointless wars instead of modernizing the energy mix. There are also instances when politicians do want to change something, but their cluelessness shows - solar freakin' roadways anyone?
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  > We opted to wage pointless wars instead No, we opted to provide incentives to fossil fuel producers and consumers. That is how we got into this mess. Pointless wars are bad for other obvious reasons.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    It’s worth pointing out that the US Military is one of the most prolific polluters in the world, and while an army at peace isn’t a totally idle thing, active deployment drives up consumption massively. Our pointless wars have absolutely contributed to global warming, although I wouldn’t pin the majority of the blame on them.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      I think the military comparison is apt, because massive military spending is seen as table stakes for being a “serious” politician in the US, whereas massive GHG reduction spending is seen as an automatic disqualifier and makes you a silly believer in the “green dream or whatever”.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    We also opted to make climate change a vehicle for unrelated progressive issues: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added
    - 5y ago
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
>Is fatalism (in an all too unfortunately literal sense) all we have left? If you wish to keep 'the world as we know it'? Yes, that ship has sailed. What we're fighting for now is the degree to which the world we know will be destroyed.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think the wording gives it away. "Unless government credibly commit to..." Not "unless governments do". Just if they "credibly commit to doing". They still aren't thinking in terms of actually doing things, just in terms of committing to do them. Talk != action, not even if the talk is "credible". You think this is an existential problem? Great. Start doing something. Don't tell me what you're going to do, do it.
DanHulton 5y ago
Keep in mind, it's not pass/fail. 2.7 is different from 2.8 is different from 2.9, etc. They're all bad, sure, even terrible, but limiting it _at all_ could make the difference for literal millions of people. Fatalism leads to giving up, which leads to us hitting all those higher numbers, which leads to an unnecessary amount of extra suffering.
- mercurywells 5y ago
  Due to the feedback loops, isn't 2.9 potentially significantly worse than 2.8 versus 2.8 compared to 2.7?
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    IPCC thinks that “tipping points” leading to positive feedback loops are highly unlikely. In general, you should rather expect negative feedback loops. For example, the warming response to increased CO2 emission is logarithmic, meaning that the more CO2 you emit, the weaker effect additional effect has, and quite significantly so. Of course, our problem is that we are emitting so much, and our emissions grow so fast, that this diminishing effect is of little consolation. The point is, negative feedback loops are much more likely than positive ones.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      There are some pretty clearly known positive feedback loops as well - mainly that ice has much higher albedo than water, and that ice covered areas that today are net emitters of heat will become net absorbers if they lose more ice. Specifically Greenland is known to already have become a net absorber, meaning that there is no way nkw to prevent the eventual permanent melting of all of Greenland's ice.
      - scarmig 5y ago
        Those are already accounted for in the 2.7C etc estimates, though. The CO2 forcing just accounts for 0.5C IIRC of the warming, with known positive feedbacks (most notably water vapor, but also albedo etc) driving the rest. The question becomes, are unknown feedbacks more likely to be positive or negative? I'd lean toward negative, which is what most experts think, but definitely an unknown.
errantspark 5y ago
I feel like we could go a long way toward this through individual choice. You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. I bet for most people on this forum that's absolutely a practical choice but the money is too good to worry about that. I don't think that's the best solution, but at least it's one I can personally enact, and if deontologically expanded it does lead to solving the problem. Don't play negative or zero sum games and ostracize those that do.
- luckylion 5y ago
  > You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. People don't like that. A friend of mine likes driving his car, and does so a lot to go places on the weekend and stuff. He'd like to see the government mandate reduced car usage. I've asked him: you're free not to use your car, why do you still use it if you believe it would be best if you didn't? Because he likes it and if it's not made into law, he won't do what he thinks is best. "We should outlaw personal air travel, but until that has happened, I'm going to fly around the globe" is what I see in far too many proponents of those rules. I have no idea what goes on in their head, it's completely alien to me.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    I know exactly what goes on in their head. They could abstain from things they like and make their lives more miserable, but it has absolutely zero impact unless millions of others also do the same. And there's no way the masses are doing that voluntarily. (See also how difficult it is to get people to put masks on, distance, take vaccines, etc. with or without mandates; now try get people to voluntarily give up property and hobbies they enjoy) Individual action just isn't enough. Hell, you could wipe my entire country of about 5 million people, and the impact on global CO2 output is on par with the average annual increase in CO2 output over the past two decades. A year or two later, the world would be outputting more CO2 than it did before our genocide.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      Yeah, I just don't understand that line of thought. Of course, each individual's actions are meaningless, but they're wouldn't be the only ones who do it. If only the voters of the green party in Germany would stop/sharply reduce flying, that would be ~10% of Germans (~16% projected votes, ~70-75% citizens are voting). Since they do fly more than the average person [1][2][3], and since they are more likely to be part of the upper class which tends to contribute more per capita, the impact would be even larger. They could single handedly massive reduce the pollution from air travel just by changing their own habits. Yet they don't, keep on flying at higher levels than other groups while demanding legislation to stop them. It's like a cliche movie killer who asks to be stopped. Look at vegans who are vegan for moral reasons. They don't say "we shouldn't eat animals, and the state should outlaw it, but until no one is allowed to eat animals, I'll have a steak every day". They start by themselves and then try to convince others and (sometimes) call for legislation. "Since my influence as an individual is meaningless, I'll continue to be (an outsized) part of the problem instead of being part of the solution" is just completely alien to me, I literally don't understand the reasoning behind it. Would they own slaves if it wasn't outlawed because one slave more or less doesn't change the big picture? [1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehler-halten-rekord-bei-flugreisen-a-1002376.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehle..., 2014 [2] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gruenen-anhaenger-fliegen-am-meisten-und-haben-das-schlechteste-gewissen/24679158.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gr..., 2019 [3] https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene-sind-die-vielflieger-des-bundestages-2019-8/ https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene..., 2019 for green members of parliament who fly more than any other party per person

RandomLensman 5y ago

No. We just cannot sustain panic continuously. I am confident that eventually a mix of decarbonization, mitigation of climate change effects, and some sort of geoengineering will avoid any apocalypse.

scarmig 5y ago
The point is that by all measures decarbonization isn't happening. Mitigations are a critical part of any solution, but expensive and hacky. And geoengineering is exactly the kind of radical new technology we might need, but the key point is that it doesn't exist right now and might not ever be practical.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  Decarbonization is happening/starting to happen - I actually see it taking off. It is an S-curve, though, so right now it looks tiny, but that will change.
  - moistly 5y ago
    Decarbonization needs to sequester it as fast—actually, much faster—than we’ve been taking it out. 75 million barrels per day. IMO that is not attainable.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  We need to turn the experience of daily life into something far worse than the most draconian COVID lockdowns to even put a dent in this problem. Forever.
  - junon 5y ago
    This is my viewpoint as well. People are all talk about "should be doing" but when it comes down to "alright, you're going to have to sacrifice some comfort" all action ceases.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      I don't think this is so much people, as corporations and the politicians they own. Even economic stagnation is seen as abhorrent, when in fact we will have to undergo economic shrinkage to even contain the problem. The entire world economy will have to start shrinking for a few decades while we replace all fossil fuels with other things, and then we can try to get back to growth. But this is absolutely not acceptable in any mainstream economic discussion, even from the left, and absolutely counter to the very definition of a for-profit corporation. Even slowing down growth is seen as 'too risky', while the world burns. Better we buy new iPhones every month to help propel the economy.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    Well... you and I will, anyway. It won't apply to politicians.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Not saying it's a good idea, but geoengineering is currently both technically and economically feasible. It would be easy for e.g. the United States to reduce the total incoming sunlight by enough to counteract global warming. The issue is that doing so will have widespread unknown issues on the planet. For example- launching enough thin, reflective mylar film to the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point to reduce incoming solar radiation by ~0.1% would take about 500 Falcon Heavy launches (highest capacity rocket currently available). This would take several years and around $100 billion. Once Starship is ready and in use, this would go way down. $100 billion and several years is practically nothing for the US, China, or one of several other countries with the capability to do this. Obvious downsides include denying the use of the L1 Lagrange point to human use permanently, eventual degradation of the sun shield as solar wind pushes pieces of film out of place, and of course possible mass famine and plant die-off due to lower solar radiation.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Check it. Teller, E., Wood, L., & Hyde, R. (1996). Global warming and ice ages: I. Prospects for physics-based modulation of global change (No. UCRL-JC--128715). Lawrence Livermore National Lab..
silisili 5y ago
Agreed, but I quit saying as much, as often here you are met with disdain for saying such things, and that you are creating distractions. TBF I do see both sides - by saying 'ah we'll figure it out' it makes it seem like it's not a huge issue(it is). But I do think we will figure it out, even if it means vaporizing the sky to block the sun while carbon increases.

RicoElectrico 5y ago

The problem lies much more in the realm of politics, rather than technology and science. We opted to wage pointless wars instead of modernizing the energy mix. There are also instances when politicians do want to change something, but their cluelessness shows - solar freakin' roadways anyone?

jonny_eh 5y ago
> We opted to wage pointless wars instead No, we opted to provide incentives to fossil fuel producers and consumers. That is how we got into this mess. Pointless wars are bad for other obvious reasons.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  It’s worth pointing out that the US Military is one of the most prolific polluters in the world, and while an army at peace isn’t a totally idle thing, active deployment drives up consumption massively. Our pointless wars have absolutely contributed to global warming, although I wouldn’t pin the majority of the blame on them.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I think the military comparison is apt, because massive military spending is seen as table stakes for being a “serious” politician in the US, whereas massive GHG reduction spending is seen as an automatic disqualifier and makes you a silly believer in the “green dream or whatever”.
- rayiner 5y ago
  We also opted to make climate change a vehicle for unrelated progressive issues: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added
  - 5y ago

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

>Is fatalism (in an all too unfortunately literal sense) all we have left? If you wish to keep 'the world as we know it'? Yes, that ship has sailed. What we're fighting for now is the degree to which the world we know will be destroyed.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I think the wording gives it away. "Unless government credibly commit to..." Not "unless governments do". Just if they "credibly commit to doing". They still aren't thinking in terms of actually doing things, just in terms of committing to do them. Talk != action, not even if the talk is "credible". You think this is an existential problem? Great. Start doing something. Don't tell me what you're going to do, do it.

DanHulton 5y ago

Keep in mind, it's not pass/fail. 2.7 is different from 2.8 is different from 2.9, etc. They're all bad, sure, even terrible, but limiting it _at all_ could make the difference for literal millions of people. Fatalism leads to giving up, which leads to us hitting all those higher numbers, which leads to an unnecessary amount of extra suffering.

mercurywells 5y ago
Due to the feedback loops, isn't 2.9 potentially significantly worse than 2.8 versus 2.8 compared to 2.7?
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  IPCC thinks that “tipping points” leading to positive feedback loops are highly unlikely. In general, you should rather expect negative feedback loops. For example, the warming response to increased CO2 emission is logarithmic, meaning that the more CO2 you emit, the weaker effect additional effect has, and quite significantly so. Of course, our problem is that we are emitting so much, and our emissions grow so fast, that this diminishing effect is of little consolation. The point is, negative feedback loops are much more likely than positive ones.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    There are some pretty clearly known positive feedback loops as well - mainly that ice has much higher albedo than water, and that ice covered areas that today are net emitters of heat will become net absorbers if they lose more ice. Specifically Greenland is known to already have become a net absorber, meaning that there is no way nkw to prevent the eventual permanent melting of all of Greenland's ice.
    - scarmig 5y ago
      Those are already accounted for in the 2.7C etc estimates, though. The CO2 forcing just accounts for 0.5C IIRC of the warming, with known positive feedbacks (most notably water vapor, but also albedo etc) driving the rest. The question becomes, are unknown feedbacks more likely to be positive or negative? I'd lean toward negative, which is what most experts think, but definitely an unknown.

errantspark 5y ago

I feel like we could go a long way toward this through individual choice. You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. I bet for most people on this forum that's absolutely a practical choice but the money is too good to worry about that. I don't think that's the best solution, but at least it's one I can personally enact, and if deontologically expanded it does lead to solving the problem. Don't play negative or zero sum games and ostracize those that do.

luckylion 5y ago
> You can just y'know, refuse to help ruining our planet. People don't like that. A friend of mine likes driving his car, and does so a lot to go places on the weekend and stuff. He'd like to see the government mandate reduced car usage. I've asked him: you're free not to use your car, why do you still use it if you believe it would be best if you didn't? Because he likes it and if it's not made into law, he won't do what he thinks is best. "We should outlaw personal air travel, but until that has happened, I'm going to fly around the globe" is what I see in far too many proponents of those rules. I have no idea what goes on in their head, it's completely alien to me.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I know exactly what goes on in their head. They could abstain from things they like and make their lives more miserable, but it has absolutely zero impact unless millions of others also do the same. And there's no way the masses are doing that voluntarily. (See also how difficult it is to get people to put masks on, distance, take vaccines, etc. with or without mandates; now try get people to voluntarily give up property and hobbies they enjoy) Individual action just isn't enough. Hell, you could wipe my entire country of about 5 million people, and the impact on global CO2 output is on par with the average annual increase in CO2 output over the past two decades. A year or two later, the world would be outputting more CO2 than it did before our genocide.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    Yeah, I just don't understand that line of thought. Of course, each individual's actions are meaningless, but they're wouldn't be the only ones who do it. If only the voters of the green party in Germany would stop/sharply reduce flying, that would be ~10% of Germans (~16% projected votes, ~70-75% citizens are voting). Since they do fly more than the average person [1][2][3], and since they are more likely to be part of the upper class which tends to contribute more per capita, the impact would be even larger. They could single handedly massive reduce the pollution from air travel just by changing their own habits. Yet they don't, keep on flying at higher levels than other groups while demanding legislation to stop them. It's like a cliche movie killer who asks to be stopped. Look at vegans who are vegan for moral reasons. They don't say "we shouldn't eat animals, and the state should outlaw it, but until no one is allowed to eat animals, I'll have a steak every day". They start by themselves and then try to convince others and (sometimes) call for legislation. "Since my influence as an individual is meaningless, I'll continue to be (an outsized) part of the problem instead of being part of the solution" is just completely alien to me, I literally don't understand the reasoning behind it. Would they own slaves if it wasn't outlawed because one slave more or less doesn't change the big picture? [1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehler-halten-rekord-bei-flugreisen-a-1002376.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gruenen-waehle..., 2014 [2] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gruenen-anhaenger-fliegen-am-meisten-und-haben-das-schlechteste-gewissen/24679158.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/umfrage-zur-flugscham-gr..., 2019 [3] https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene-sind-die-vielflieger-des-bundestages-2019-8/ https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-gruene..., 2019 for green members of parliament who fly more than any other party per person