3 ms·

> Nobody will support significant sacrifice to combat climate change I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don

> Nobody will support significant sacrifice to combat climate change I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don't prevent the worst consequences of climate change. But what we also need is a shift in mindset: Optimize for happiness and not for economic growth. > The path is straightforward: electrify everything, and make the grid green. There are only three major industries that are difficult to electrify: cement, steel and air travel. Steel & air travel can use hydrogen. For cement, you use low carbon processes to get carbon emissions down to about 10% of previous, and then store the rest. That's just a hundreds of megatonnes, and that is feasible. Did you read the part about hydrogen in the article?

mikeheaton 5y ago
> I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don't prevent the worst consequences of climate change. But what we also need is a shift in mindset: Optimize for happiness and not for economic growth. I agree you but I agree more with OP, but would rephrase: there’s zero chance that a sufficient majority of people will agree with reducing consumption. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter at all what you and I think would be better. If we really do want to prevent the worst damage of climate change then we’re beyond the point where we can rely on an extremely radical population-wide attitude shift occurring in the next few years.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  They're not going to have much choice in the matter, I'd guess.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
> I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don't prevent the worst consequences of climate change. But what we also need is a shift in mindset: Optimize for happiness and not for economic growth. We need net-zero. You can't efficiency and reduce to zero. > Did you read the part about hydrogen in the article? What about it? The solution is electrification, not a hydrogen economy. Except for possibly the small niches of steel and possibly flight.

mikeheaton 5y ago

> I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don't prevent the worst consequences of climate change. But what we also need is a shift in mindset: Optimize for happiness and not for economic growth. I agree you but I agree more with OP, but would rephrase: there’s zero chance that a sufficient majority of people will agree with reducing consumption. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter at all what you and I think would be better. If we really do want to prevent the worst damage of climate change then we’re beyond the point where we can rely on an extremely radical population-wide attitude shift occurring in the next few years.

emodendroket 5y ago
They're not going to have much choice in the matter, I'd guess.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

> I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don't prevent the worst consequences of climate change. But what we also need is a shift in mindset: Optimize for happiness and not for economic growth. We need net-zero. You can't efficiency and reduce to zero. > Did you read the part about hydrogen in the article? What about it? The solution is electrification, not a hydrogen economy. Except for possibly the small niches of steel and possibly flight.