3 ms·

I am at the point where it is something that comes out of Y Combinator or defense companies that solve the problems of climate change. Either tech solves the pr

I am at the point where it is something that comes out of Y Combinator or defense companies that solve the problems of climate change. Either tech solves the problem or we fight over what is left.

kergonath 5y ago
Any technological solution at this point is going to face an impossible political situation. We have plenty of technological solutions already, and look at the mess we have. Sure, none of them is perfect, but none ever will be, either.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Tesla is making a lot of progress in electrification of transport. No impossible politics got in their way. Mostly standard fights over unions and subsidies.
duped 5y ago
Tech is the problem of climate change. Tech powers economic growth, which has a price in joules, that incurs a debt in carbon. And not only that, the solution to the problem is already known. Have fewer babies and reduce the population over time, travel less, produce goods closer to where they are needed, eat more produce and less meat, and increase prices for goods and services that require more energy and produce more carbon emissions. Those are not technical solutions, they're political and economic.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  You would have an easier time negotiating the laws of physics or lobbying the sun to be a little less hot. Those are not happening, so we need to take a look at what is next on the list of possibilities.
  - duped 5y ago
    It's easier to raise taxes than build nukes. There are no technological possibilities that are predicated on sustained increases in human economic activity and energy usage. At best they slow the pace of climate change and at worse are fools errands.
- epistasis 5y ago
  That's ridiculous, having fewer babies does nothing to help us fight climate change, and proposing that shows a horribly muddled view of the problem. The maximum climate effect from reducing having babies would mean no children for, say, the next 20 years. What does that do to reduce emissions to negative by 2050? Nothing! The very best it could possibly do is reduce emissions a tiny bit. It does not solve the problem, and it handicaps the workforce right when we need more people producing the tech to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, in all the multitude of ways we need reconfigure our economy to be carbon negative. Tech is the only only only way out, unless you advocating for the premature deaths of billions and a return to nomadic lifestyles. Suggesting having fewer babies as a solution is just completely unserious. The other major fallacy is that more goods and services requires more carbon emissions. That's just BS. In general, goods require a lot more carbon at the moment, but that's absolutely not a requirement, it's only because we are pulling geological carbon out of the ground and dumping it into the atmosphere to capture stored energy. We have newer, better tech to capture energy from the sun and wind and store it, that does not require any emissions. Meat, similarly, is a red herring for those of us in the US. It's nothing compared to out driving, nothing at all. But brining up meat sure does rile up people to think that they aren't willing to make any changes. We have the tech, and I agree that the problems are political for their deployment, but solar wind and storage will be far more economically efficient when deployed.
ayngg 5y ago
I don't think there ever was another solution. Climate change policy will always incur asymmetrical costs, and the people who it effects wouldn't willingly enact them, and others would rarely share that burden in a meaningful way. Outside of innovation, any other policy will most likely incur economic cost which politicians are hesitant to do, especially now with how stretched lower classes are. I think the only way out is to make non hydrocarbon based energy production cheaper and as dependable as hydrocarbons.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  100% agree. We innovate our way out of this or we go over a cliff, as if politicians tried to reduce standards of living instead, they would be thrown out in favour of authoritarians who simply would not care about environmental harm.

I am at the point where it is something that comes out of Y Combinator or defense companies that solve the problems of climate change. Either tech solves the problem or we fight over what is left.

kergonath 5y ago

Any technological solution at this point is going to face an impossible political situation. We have plenty of technological solutions already, and look at the mess we have. Sure, none of them is perfect, but none ever will be, either.

MattGaiser 5y ago
Tesla is making a lot of progress in electrification of transport. No impossible politics got in their way. Mostly standard fights over unions and subsidies.

duped 5y ago

Tech is the problem of climate change. Tech powers economic growth, which has a price in joules, that incurs a debt in carbon. And not only that, the solution to the problem is already known. Have fewer babies and reduce the population over time, travel less, produce goods closer to where they are needed, eat more produce and less meat, and increase prices for goods and services that require more energy and produce more carbon emissions. Those are not technical solutions, they're political and economic.

MattGaiser 5y ago
You would have an easier time negotiating the laws of physics or lobbying the sun to be a little less hot. Those are not happening, so we need to take a look at what is next on the list of possibilities.
- duped 5y ago
  It's easier to raise taxes than build nukes. There are no technological possibilities that are predicated on sustained increases in human economic activity and energy usage. At best they slow the pace of climate change and at worse are fools errands.
epistasis 5y ago
That's ridiculous, having fewer babies does nothing to help us fight climate change, and proposing that shows a horribly muddled view of the problem. The maximum climate effect from reducing having babies would mean no children for, say, the next 20 years. What does that do to reduce emissions to negative by 2050? Nothing! The very best it could possibly do is reduce emissions a tiny bit. It does not solve the problem, and it handicaps the workforce right when we need more people producing the tech to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, in all the multitude of ways we need reconfigure our economy to be carbon negative. Tech is the only only only way out, unless you advocating for the premature deaths of billions and a return to nomadic lifestyles. Suggesting having fewer babies as a solution is just completely unserious. The other major fallacy is that more goods and services requires more carbon emissions. That's just BS. In general, goods require a lot more carbon at the moment, but that's absolutely not a requirement, it's only because we are pulling geological carbon out of the ground and dumping it into the atmosphere to capture stored energy. We have newer, better tech to capture energy from the sun and wind and store it, that does not require any emissions. Meat, similarly, is a red herring for those of us in the US. It's nothing compared to out driving, nothing at all. But brining up meat sure does rile up people to think that they aren't willing to make any changes. We have the tech, and I agree that the problems are political for their deployment, but solar wind and storage will be far more economically efficient when deployed.

ayngg 5y ago

I don't think there ever was another solution. Climate change policy will always incur asymmetrical costs, and the people who it effects wouldn't willingly enact them, and others would rarely share that burden in a meaningful way. Outside of innovation, any other policy will most likely incur economic cost which politicians are hesitant to do, especially now with how stretched lower classes are. I think the only way out is to make non hydrocarbon based energy production cheaper and as dependable as hydrocarbons.

MattGaiser 5y ago
100% agree. We innovate our way out of this or we go over a cliff, as if politicians tried to reduce standards of living instead, they would be thrown out in favour of authoritarians who simply would not care about environmental harm.