4 ms·
Um, no. This article isn't how any of this works. I think I see what's going on, from the article: Ted Nordhaus is the founder and executive director of the B
by zackmorris 5y ago
Um, no. This article isn't how any of this works.
I think I see what's going on, from the article:
Ted Nordhaus is the founder and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, a research centre focused on technological solutions to environmental challenges.
The first step in addressing global climate change is realizing that it's not the sort of problem that more tech or capitalism can solve, since they created it.
From a tech perspective, the scale of the problem is that the majority of people on Earth need to transition to things like solar and electric cars/bikes, redesign cities to lose the suburbs, not to mention fix the majority of the supply chain to be sustainable. It's tens of thousands of dollars per person, something like $10-100 trillion total. Wealthy countries never wanted to pay for that or lead on that, so here we are.
An alternative might be sustainability from a seventh generation standpoint, picking ourselves up by our bootstraps solarpunk fashion because world leaders are unlikely to act on this before it's too late (which it may already be). This is the approach I'm taking in my own life.
If we don't start doing something, coral reefs will be dead by 2050, remaining fisheries will collapse, there will be great refugee migrations and potentially WWIII. But it won't matter anyway since the remaining forest will also be gone and most large non-agriculture land animals will be extinct by 2100. I'd say this sounds alarmist, but I first heard about it as a kid in the 1980s when Reagan took the solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed, and it's so much worse today, as we're seeing.
Environmental causes were traditionally led by a handful of people. All of the remaining wildernesses left in the US got there because someone sacrificed years of their life organizing, fundraising and waging legal battles against resource extractors and the government. This was never ideal, but if it weren't for that, it would all be gone today.
Don't let articles like this distract you from your personal contribution.
- andybak 5y ago> The first step in addressing global climate change is realizing that it's not the sort of problem that more tech or more capitalism The problem is that it seems more and more unlikely that anything will solve it aside from more tech. (I'll avoid the "capitalism" aspect as it's a fairly poorly defined term at least in it's common usage). The ability to coordinate globally on a problem of mutual concern for the common good might have been viable at some points in history but it seems to be impossible right now. That might change as things get worse but at that point it might be too late for anything other than drastic solutions. I can't see a way out other than "wait until it's awful and then throw a big chunk of the world's GDP at it" (or wait for a supervolcano to solve it for us)