3 ms·

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

by 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.

by duped 5y ago

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.