5 ms·

Here you can replace 'God' with technology and that's pretty much what you'll see here. Unwavering belief that technology will be their salvation from climate c

Here you can replace 'God' with technology and that's pretty much what you'll see here. Unwavering belief that technology will be their salvation from climate change.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
You proved my point! The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. There is thread after thread after thread chock full of citations on this matter. And yet you say, without the slightest hint of proof, that’s it’s a belief versus data. It’s astounding really, and these data points have helped me recalibrate my expectations of fellow humans, as well as my empathy for them.
- soco 5y ago
  There's a big difference between "technology can save the world" and "technology saves the world". Right now we see a lot of talk and very little action so indeed, I wouldn't rely as of yet on technology either.
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  >The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. Gonna need a link to one of those threads full of citations on this claim, because this is not at all my understanding. Even if we had a magic wand that would reduce anthropogenic CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions to zero overnight, we're already far above historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations and will be paying the price. Edit: since I'm asking for citations, here's mine[1] showing that according to climate models zero CO2 emissions from 2020 onward would have little effect on the global mean temperature through 2100. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2
  - burkaman 5y ago
    It just depends on your definition of "solved". If solved means "all consequences of anthropogenic climate change avoided" then it's obviously too late, there's no solution other than time travel. If solved means "humanity survives as a species" then we're in pretty good shape no matter what we do. For most people I think solved means "we avoid the worst effects", which of course leads to another question about definitions. Many people look at the graph in your citation and see it as a picture of success, because the baseline in their mind is RCP8.5. Note that the graph makes a comparison to RCP2.6, which is not a "do nothing" scenario, it's a pretty optimistic and aspirational future.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  I'm normally simpatico with you, but I need you to help me find the data that says that this will work without cutting energy consumption in rich countries, and do that without creating a permanent underclass of poor countries forcibly held to a lower consumption rate than than those rich countries. I have yet to see a scientific case for luxury communism where every Indian peasant gets their own suburban yard. edit: and I do see a lot of people saying that technology right around the corner will just solve the problem without anyone having to change their lifestyle in the slightest.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    The alternative is billions dead and cultural extinction - at best. "I didn't want to cut down on drinking/CO2/media pollution/etc so I killed myself instead" - which of these is a winning move?
    - CrazyStat 5y ago
      The problem, of course, is that the people who would need to cut down the most are also the people least likely to die.
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      Not everyone is so lucky to just cut media pollution. Imagine a subsistence farmer that wants a tractor so the children don't need to help in the field and can go to school. That would increase the carbon footprint of the family.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  My understanding is that all that technology can slow the influence of the existing damage of climate change, not solve it. This is partially because climate change is an ongoing phemomenon that 1) has already happened; 2) is currently happening; 3) will continue to happen. In order to "solve" climate change one would have to go back in time.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  Didn't realize I was going to have a defend a PHD dissertation with my comment, especially since I don't claim to be an expert on climate change or anything, this is mainly what I've gathered from a few books and many articles and news stories I've read. The biggest problem I see with 'technology will solve everything' beliefs (evidence-based beliefs are still beliefs) is that these solutions are almost always in a people and political vacuum. They assume that there will be nothing stopping or slowing it down or even reversing it from happening, from people not wanting wind farms in their back yard[1], to human nature prioritizing short-term issues over long-term threats[2][3] and voting accordingly[4], the inability for a people to enforce change on a global level (even if the US behaves perfectly, how are they going to get China[5] or India[6] to go to zero emissions without going to war with them...we saw this exact problem play out with the Covid pandemic, although the US was one of those bad actors). And politicians themselves have little-to-no incentives to stop climate change[7]. You even got people like Biden, who says "climate change is the number one issue facing humanity"[8], and yet he's caught falling asleep at the COP26 climate summit[9] (which does not help the image of how seriously the US is treating climate change) as well as approving new drilling permits for oil and gas extraction, at a faster rate than even Trump[10]. And lobbyists are able to kill climate change legislation just by putting some cash in the right politician's hands (Manchin in this case)[11]. There's other issues with the actual feasibility of the technology as well, such as we might not have enough materials for all the solar panels and wind turbine we'll need to build[12] (and the actual study they cite here[13]). But that's really a whole separate thing I don't have time to hunt down the articles for right now. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it weren't for people's actions, and now fans of the technology think everyone is going to magically do a full 180 on their behavior and fall in line for something they can't even see beyond some wildfires and stronger hurricanes, which they dismiss as freak events just as easily and keep their heads in the sand. If anything it appears to me that we're going to wrong direction as far as the human and political element is concerned. Yes, some things are getting better, but we need massive global systemic change decades ago and that's clearly still not happening today, despite great progress on Solar and Wind affordability and EV cars (as well as other initiatives). I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue these technological solutions as much as we can, far from it. I just think because of various reasons it's not going to get us to where we need to be, and more work needs to be done on trying to rewrite the brains and incentive-structures of people and politicians or we're almost certainly not going to meet those goals, and that's being glossed over in favor of saying "well, technically it can still be done!" [1]: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-threat-renewable-energy https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-... [2]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=553048... [3]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190109-the-perils-of-sh... [4]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/the-no-1-esg-issue-for-americans-isnt-climate-change.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/the-no-1-esg-issue-for-ameri... [5]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi... [6]: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-build-new-coal-plants-due-low-cost-despite-climate-change-2021-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-buil... [7]: https://theconversation.com/cop26-why-politicians-have-little-incentive-to-prepare-for-future-climate-change-disasters-171539 https://theconversation.com/cop26-why-politicians-have-littl... [8]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-change-is-number-one-issue-facing-humanity.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-change-is-... [9]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/02/joe-biden-dozes-off-cop26-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/02/joe-biden-doz... [10]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/27/oil-gas-leasing-biden-climate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/2... [11]: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/20/1065695953/build-back-better-climate-change https://www.npr.org/2021/12/20/1065695953/build-back-better-... [12]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/renewable-limits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/re... [13]: https://www.metabolic.nl/publication/metal-demand-for-renewable-electricity-generation-in-the-netherlands/ https://www.metabolic.nl/publication/metal-demand-for-renewa...
nathanaldensr 5y ago
Exactly. You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." This then quickly and naturally devolves into authoritarian feelings, proposals, and anger. I think people who participate in such arguments fail to see how history is replete with examples of how this type of angry spirit leads to nothing but war, subjugation, and death. In other words, it's an egotistical expression that lacks historical wisdom.
- gryfft 5y ago
  It is bad when people do bad things. It is absolutely morally reprehensible when they do those bad things knowingly in bad faith. It is terrible and exhausting to deal with those people and the people further clouding the air around the things those people do by expressing their ignorance proudly and angrily and attacking anyone whose behavior does not properly signal the same pride in the same ignorance.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  That's one of the deeper wisdoms of non-violent direct action. That the way in which one wins is as important as winning, because it shapes the people who exist after the conflict is resolved. Internet arguing follows the same logic. If I logically out-fence you by being an asshole, what have I gained? What have we gained? Whereas if I politely and respectfully describe why eating Irish babies is a solution to overpopulation of the lower classes [0], we all feel better about ourselves, even if you decline to agree with me. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." The thing is, from a neutral external perspective, when one side claims "there is no climate change, only God's will" and the other side claims "Climate change is man-made and will escalate to the point of irreversibility if nothing is done", then only one side can back up their argument with verifiable facts. And yet, "listen to both sides!!!"-style arguments result in complete bullshit given the attention of millions of people. Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people. Democracy itself is at war with disinformation from all kind of sources, both foreign (Russian and Chinese propaganda) and domestic (corporate or otherwise financially motivated shills, authoritarian politicians willing to grab power).
BobbyJo 5y ago
We have evidence to support technology's potential to solve certain issues. Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. It's naive to think it'll all go as planned with some needed happy surprises along the way, but comparing that to 'God will handle it' feels a little stretched.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  > Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. "Even if the world manages to limit warming to 1.5C, some long-term impacts of warming already in train are likely to be inevitable and irreversible. These include sea level rises, the melting of Arctic ice, and the warming and acidification of the oceans. Drastic reductions in emissions can stave off worse climate change, according to IPCC scientists, but will not return the world to the more moderate weather patterns of the past." "Ed Hawkins, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading, and a lead author for the IPCC, said: “We are already experiencing climate change, including more frequent and extreme weather events, and for many of these impacts there is no going back.”" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-... And actually, here's this direct from the headline statements in the IPCC report itself: "Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level." https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Headline_Statements.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    Don't misinterpret my statement to mean "we can undo all the damage already done". Also, don't misinterpret it to mean "we can prevent any further damage". When I say solutions are on the roadmap, I mean somewhere down the road we'll be able to stop doing the bad things and save ourselves.
lamontcg 5y ago
Except when it comes to mRNA vaccine mandates, then technology is suddenly bad.

Here you can replace 'God' with technology and that's pretty much what you'll see here. Unwavering belief that technology will be their salvation from climate change.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

You proved my point! The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. There is thread after thread after thread chock full of citations on this matter. And yet you say, without the slightest hint of proof, that’s it’s a belief versus data. It’s astounding really, and these data points have helped me recalibrate my expectations of fellow humans, as well as my empathy for them.

soco 5y ago
There's a big difference between "technology can save the world" and "technology saves the world". Right now we see a lot of talk and very little action so indeed, I wouldn't rely as of yet on technology either.
CrazyStat 5y ago
>The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. Gonna need a link to one of those threads full of citations on this claim, because this is not at all my understanding. Even if we had a magic wand that would reduce anthropogenic CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions to zero overnight, we're already far above historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations and will be paying the price. Edit: since I'm asking for citations, here's mine[1] showing that according to climate models zero CO2 emissions from 2020 onward would have little effect on the global mean temperature through 2100. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2
- burkaman 5y ago
  It just depends on your definition of "solved". If solved means "all consequences of anthropogenic climate change avoided" then it's obviously too late, there's no solution other than time travel. If solved means "humanity survives as a species" then we're in pretty good shape no matter what we do. For most people I think solved means "we avoid the worst effects", which of course leads to another question about definitions. Many people look at the graph in your citation and see it as a picture of success, because the baseline in their mind is RCP8.5. Note that the graph makes a comparison to RCP2.6, which is not a "do nothing" scenario, it's a pretty optimistic and aspirational future.
pessimizer 5y ago
I'm normally simpatico with you, but I need you to help me find the data that says that this will work without cutting energy consumption in rich countries, and do that without creating a permanent underclass of poor countries forcibly held to a lower consumption rate than than those rich countries. I have yet to see a scientific case for luxury communism where every Indian peasant gets their own suburban yard. edit: and I do see a lot of people saying that technology right around the corner will just solve the problem without anyone having to change their lifestyle in the slightest.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  The alternative is billions dead and cultural extinction - at best. "I didn't want to cut down on drinking/CO2/media pollution/etc so I killed myself instead" - which of these is a winning move?
  - CrazyStat 5y ago
    The problem, of course, is that the people who would need to cut down the most are also the people least likely to die.
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    Not everyone is so lucky to just cut media pollution. Imagine a subsistence farmer that wants a tractor so the children don't need to help in the field and can go to school. That would increase the carbon footprint of the family.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
KittenInABox 5y ago
My understanding is that all that technology can slow the influence of the existing damage of climate change, not solve it. This is partially because climate change is an ongoing phemomenon that 1) has already happened; 2) is currently happening; 3) will continue to happen. In order to "solve" climate change one would have to go back in time.
cableshaft 5y ago
Didn't realize I was going to have a defend a PHD dissertation with my comment, especially since I don't claim to be an expert on climate change or anything, this is mainly what I've gathered from a few books and many articles and news stories I've read. The biggest problem I see with 'technology will solve everything' beliefs (evidence-based beliefs are still beliefs) is that these solutions are almost always in a people and political vacuum. They assume that there will be nothing stopping or slowing it down or even reversing it from happening, from people not wanting wind farms in their back yard[1], to human nature prioritizing short-term issues over long-term threats[2][3] and voting accordingly[4], the inability for a people to enforce change on a global level (even if the US behaves perfectly, how are they going to get China[5] or India[6] to go to zero emissions without going to war with them...we saw this exact problem play out with the Covid pandemic, although the US was one of those bad actors). And politicians themselves have little-to-no incentives to stop climate change[7]. You even got people like Biden, who says "climate change is the number one issue facing humanity"[8], and yet he's caught falling asleep at the COP26 climate summit[9] (which does not help the image of how seriously the US is treating climate change) as well as approving new drilling permits for oil and gas extraction, at a faster rate than even Trump[10]. And lobbyists are able to kill climate change legislation just by putting some cash in the right politician's hands (Manchin in this case)[11]. There's other issues with the actual feasibility of the technology as well, such as we might not have enough materials for all the solar panels and wind turbine we'll need to build[12] (and the actual study they cite here[13]). But that's really a whole separate thing I don't have time to hunt down the articles for right now. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it weren't for people's actions, and now fans of the technology think everyone is going to magically do a full 180 on their behavior and fall in line for something they can't even see beyond some wildfires and stronger hurricanes, which they dismiss as freak events just as easily and keep their heads in the sand. If anything it appears to me that we're going to wrong direction as far as the human and political element is concerned. Yes, some things are getting better, but we need massive global systemic change decades ago and that's clearly still not happening today, despite great progress on Solar and Wind affordability and EV cars (as well as other initiatives). I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue these technological solutions as much as we can, far from it. I just think because of various reasons it's not going to get us to where we need to be, and more work needs to be done on trying to rewrite the brains and incentive-structures of people and politicians or we're almost certainly not going to meet those goals, and that's being glossed over in favor of saying "well, technically it can still be done!" [1]: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-threat-renewable-energy https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-... [2]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=553048... [3]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190109-the-perils-of-sh... [4]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/the-no-1-esg-issue-for-americans-isnt-climate-change.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/the-no-1-esg-issue-for-ameri... [5]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi... [6]: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-build-new-coal-plants-due-low-cost-despite-climate-change-2021-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-buil... [7]: https://theconversation.com/cop26-why-politicians-have-little-incentive-to-prepare-for-future-climate-change-disasters-171539 https://theconversation.com/cop26-why-politicians-have-littl... [8]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-change-is-number-one-issue-facing-humanity.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-change-is-... [9]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/02/joe-biden-dozes-off-cop26-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/02/joe-biden-doz... [10]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/27/oil-gas-leasing-biden-climate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/2... [11]: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/20/1065695953/build-back-better-climate-change https://www.npr.org/2021/12/20/1065695953/build-back-better-... [12]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/renewable-limits-materials-dutch-ministry-infrastructure/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/re... [13]: https://www.metabolic.nl/publication/metal-demand-for-renewable-electricity-generation-in-the-netherlands/ https://www.metabolic.nl/publication/metal-demand-for-renewa...

nathanaldensr 5y ago

Exactly. You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." This then quickly and naturally devolves into authoritarian feelings, proposals, and anger. I think people who participate in such arguments fail to see how history is replete with examples of how this type of angry spirit leads to nothing but war, subjugation, and death. In other words, it's an egotistical expression that lacks historical wisdom.

gryfft 5y ago
It is bad when people do bad things. It is absolutely morally reprehensible when they do those bad things knowingly in bad faith. It is terrible and exhausting to deal with those people and the people further clouding the air around the things those people do by expressing their ignorance proudly and angrily and attacking anyone whose behavior does not properly signal the same pride in the same ignorance.
ethbr0 5y ago
That's one of the deeper wisdoms of non-violent direct action. That the way in which one wins is as important as winning, because it shapes the people who exist after the conflict is resolved. Internet arguing follows the same logic. If I logically out-fence you by being an asshole, what have I gained? What have we gained? Whereas if I politely and respectfully describe why eating Irish babies is a solution to overpopulation of the lower classes [0], we all feel better about ourselves, even if you decline to agree with me. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
mschuster91 5y ago
> You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." The thing is, from a neutral external perspective, when one side claims "there is no climate change, only God's will" and the other side claims "Climate change is man-made and will escalate to the point of irreversibility if nothing is done", then only one side can back up their argument with verifiable facts. And yet, "listen to both sides!!!"-style arguments result in complete bullshit given the attention of millions of people. Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people. Democracy itself is at war with disinformation from all kind of sources, both foreign (Russian and Chinese propaganda) and domestic (corporate or otherwise financially motivated shills, authoritarian politicians willing to grab power).

BobbyJo 5y ago

We have evidence to support technology's potential to solve certain issues. Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. It's naive to think it'll all go as planned with some needed happy surprises along the way, but comparing that to 'God will handle it' feels a little stretched.

cableshaft 5y ago
> Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. "Even if the world manages to limit warming to 1.5C, some long-term impacts of warming already in train are likely to be inevitable and irreversible. These include sea level rises, the melting of Arctic ice, and the warming and acidification of the oceans. Drastic reductions in emissions can stave off worse climate change, according to IPCC scientists, but will not return the world to the more moderate weather patterns of the past." "Ed Hawkins, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading, and a lead author for the IPCC, said: “We are already experiencing climate change, including more frequent and extreme weather events, and for many of these impacts there is no going back.”" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-... And actually, here's this direct from the headline statements in the IPCC report itself: "Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level." https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Headline_Statements.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  Don't misinterpret my statement to mean "we can undo all the damage already done". Also, don't misinterpret it to mean "we can prevent any further damage". When I say solutions are on the roadmap, I mean somewhere down the road we'll be able to stop doing the bad things and save ourselves.

lamontcg 5y ago

Except when it comes to mRNA vaccine mandates, then technology is suddenly bad.