4 ms·

It doesn't even make sense because it ignores the fact that we literally cannot reduce our personal footprints to a level that would prevent significant climate

by throwaway22032 5y ago

It doesn't even make sense because it ignores the fact that we literally cannot reduce our personal footprints to a level that would prevent significant climate change. There is no sustainable level of emissions. In order for me to reach net zero I'd have to sell my house, car, give up all of the food that I eat (yes - all of it - my oat milk has a nonzero footprint that is not capturable), etc. The only actual solution is to institute a carbon tax so that we develop technological solutions to all of these problems. Basically, you can't choose to go net zero as an individual.

bumby 5y ago
Where are you getting the idea that personal footprints have to be reduced to zero or less? That assumption only holds if there are no carbon sinks. What you're really saying is you can't reduce your footprint and keep the same quality of life. The problem is, in part, when we define the quality of life by the amount of shit we consume. Some consumption is necessary or great, but probably not the amount seen in many industrialized nations.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I was going to reply something similar, but I think the core of the comment you're replying to is that this is a collective action problem. Making any changes on my own will be harder on me than if everyone made a change. Both because technology can solve a lot of this, and because I look and feel worse positionally if it's just me making a change.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    I don't think it's merely _hard_, I think it's fundamentally impossible for us to do it without technological advancement or at least greater application of existing technology. I don't think that 7 billion people can live net zero without us building loads more solar panels, nuclear plants, changing a bunch of industrial processes, etc. These are things that individuals literally cannot do. Even trivial things like - I can't buy a net zero fork to eat my dinner with. I mean, I'm sure one or two things I could, but at the scale of my entire life it would become a full time job. I guess I could start a co2 capture company, that is actually feasibly possible. But I don't think that's what people are getting at with the personal responsibility stuff. It's all - "which brand of tape are you using to fix the leak in your roof?"
    - bumby 5y ago
      >I can't buy a net zero fork to eat my dinner with. I mean, one argument is that removing yourself from the demand side and using a fork that already exists is essentially net zero. Is buying an EV really helping when it displaces a perfectly functional car? Or is it just sustainable theater? I'm sure there's a balance somewhere, but probably not near our current lifestyle in the west. Net zero is a lot harder when you have an economy predicated on the constant churn of consumerism.
      - throwaway22032 5y ago
        I agree that consumerism is bollocks and is something we could easily get rid of whilst generally increasing our happiness. Sure, so that works for a fork. And yeah, we can probably do it for all of the forks, so that's scalable. How about rice? Laundry liquid? Humour me - surely you can think of things we use all of the time that are not possible to make net zero at present? I mean, I can't even get off the gas in my boiler without putting in a heat pump that uses carbon to produce and maintain and repair. Even that one isn't fixed!
        bumby 5y ago
        Yes, that's precisely the point. Save it for the items that really bring value to our lives. The reason we're so dependent on technology to help is because we dug a hole by doing the opposite. And I'm not equivocating that it's easy. Your heat pump analogy is the perfect example where life-cycle effects should come into play. I think it would be very interesting to see a study of something like comparing a new EV with the impact of maintaining an older ICE car. I suspect a lot of EV purchases are about status veiled in sustainability. I want energy to be spent on big impact things like healthcare and food and sanitation. But considering ~60-70% of the economy is based on consumerism there's a lot of room to improve
  - bumby 5y ago
    I agree, there's some tragedy of the commons here. But while I think technology will be one of the big factors, I also think it's used as a reason for people to avoid the cognitive dissonance of hard choices. Why should I have to do something unpleasant when I can just wait for technology to save us? We don't apply that same thinking to something like cigarette smoking ("why quit when I can just count on medical technology to save me?"). In abstract problems I think policy is needed to drive such collective action. The best outcomes seem to be when regulation and the market coexist toward the same goal.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      I think you're muddling the directionality here. What is your proposed "hard choice" that results in, say, my city being net zero or even drastically reducing its' emissions? I can independently do it, probably by using a lot of land, finding a favourable spot to plop my passivhaus, and wiping the balance sheet clean at some point (e.g. I pretend that all of the material going into the solar panels, the wood etc 'doesn't count'). But what do the other ten million people do? Demolish all of the existing buildings and rebuild from scratch with far more insulation etc? Move in with each other and leave half of the buildings to rot? This isn't intended as snark by the way, I just don't see the answer here. Is your point that we could slow down climate change a bit whilst we wait for the technology to catch up? Because it's definitely a hard requirement.
      - bumby 5y ago
        I don't think there is a single person that can do that and I'm not sure anyone would suggest there is. But saying a single action doesn't matter is not the same as saying a collection of single actions don't matter. Just like people shouldn't think working out once will magically make themselves fit, but string enough of those actions together and you can make an appreciable difference. The point is those other ten million people would need to make similar choices. Saying you can't control those other people comes across as just hand-washing yourself of responsibility. My point is that I think a lot of people use the technological argument to reduce any personal responsibility. It's true that I don't think we can simply conserve ourselves to net zero, but I do think it's a part of the solution. I often see people use the technological excuse as a way to not change and just keep the status quo so they don't have to feel the pain of sacrifice. It's easier to keep the problem in the abstract where one doesn't have to make concrete personal choices. Sometimes those tough choices are supporting policies that may align against your own personal, short-term self-interest.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  Well, sure, fair enough, we need to get to the level at which our averaged personal consumption is (all_carbon_sinks / human_population). As far as I know that's such a tiny figure that it may as well effectively be zero compared to what everyone I know is doing at the moment, not only in the UK but in less wealthy countries around the world.
- labster 5y ago
  > Where are you getting the idea that personal footprints have to be reduced to zero or less? That assumption only holds if there are no carbon sinks. This is not really correct thinking, because you need to account for both sinks and sources of carbon. For instance, you could emit methane locally enough to, say, intensify a forest fire or dissolve methane clathrates. Then a forest somewhere else absorbs the original weight in carbon dioxide. This is net zero emissions for you, but certainly causes more warming. The best way to think of it is as a system with sources, sinks, and feedbacks. But really, the biggest adjustment to your life to reduce carbon emissions is to get involved in politics. Everyone reducing to net zero at home would make a tiny dent in the problem. The big users are transportation and concrete and metals.
  - bumby 5y ago
    I agree with you on all of these points. I was simply advocating a system viewpoint (perhaps poorly) but you did a better job explaining. (One exception: I believe when you combine commercial and residential facilities, their respective energy use surpasses transport) By concrete, do you mean cement specifically? Or is there additional CO2 from the process of using aggregate?
    - labster 5y ago
      I was just giving a concrete example (pun intended). There’s still some rock crushing for aggregate, but the energy is mostly in cement. Concrete uses most of the cement, so it’s a good target. Japan uses something like four times the concrete of California, despite similar population, land area, and geography.
      - bumby 5y ago
        I've heard similar about concrete as well, but have had a difficult time putting it in context. "Cement (3%): carbon dioxide is produced as a byproduct of a chemical conversion process used in the production of clinker, a component of cement. In this reaction, limestone (CaCO3) is converted to lime (CaO), and produces CO2 as a byproduct. Cement production also produces emissions from energy inputs – these related emissions are included in ‘Energy Use in Industry’." Unfortunately, it doesn't further breakdown what percentage of the cement energy inputs contribute to GHG emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
fuzzfactor 5y ago
Tax is not the answer. Natural gas is the least expensive hydrocarbon coming from the oil well and the most expensive to contain. The money lost to the escaping gas is usually more than recovered by the value of the accompanying oil that is marketed. It has often been financially affordable to waste lots of gas since forever. Most of the wells will have total production "well" in excess of any tax that can actually be required on the gas. It will be too easy to pay new taxes. Even if an authority was capable of the most effective action ever seen, it should still not be allowed to go for the money grab. Needs regulation & enforcement instead, which doesn't make the same money, nor have a constant money stream.

bumby 5y ago

Where are you getting the idea that personal footprints have to be reduced to zero or less? That assumption only holds if there are no carbon sinks. What you're really saying is you can't reduce your footprint and keep the same quality of life. The problem is, in part, when we define the quality of life by the amount of shit we consume. Some consumption is necessary or great, but probably not the amount seen in many industrialized nations.

space_fountain 5y ago
I was going to reply something similar, but I think the core of the comment you're replying to is that this is a collective action problem. Making any changes on my own will be harder on me than if everyone made a change. Both because technology can solve a lot of this, and because I look and feel worse positionally if it's just me making a change.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  I don't think it's merely _hard_, I think it's fundamentally impossible for us to do it without technological advancement or at least greater application of existing technology. I don't think that 7 billion people can live net zero without us building loads more solar panels, nuclear plants, changing a bunch of industrial processes, etc. These are things that individuals literally cannot do. Even trivial things like - I can't buy a net zero fork to eat my dinner with. I mean, I'm sure one or two things I could, but at the scale of my entire life it would become a full time job. I guess I could start a co2 capture company, that is actually feasibly possible. But I don't think that's what people are getting at with the personal responsibility stuff. It's all - "which brand of tape are you using to fix the leak in your roof?"
  - bumby 5y ago
    >I can't buy a net zero fork to eat my dinner with. I mean, one argument is that removing yourself from the demand side and using a fork that already exists is essentially net zero. Is buying an EV really helping when it displaces a perfectly functional car? Or is it just sustainable theater? I'm sure there's a balance somewhere, but probably not near our current lifestyle in the west. Net zero is a lot harder when you have an economy predicated on the constant churn of consumerism.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      I agree that consumerism is bollocks and is something we could easily get rid of whilst generally increasing our happiness. Sure, so that works for a fork. And yeah, we can probably do it for all of the forks, so that's scalable. How about rice? Laundry liquid? Humour me - surely you can think of things we use all of the time that are not possible to make net zero at present? I mean, I can't even get off the gas in my boiler without putting in a heat pump that uses carbon to produce and maintain and repair. Even that one isn't fixed!
      - bumby 5y ago
        Yes, that's precisely the point. Save it for the items that really bring value to our lives. The reason we're so dependent on technology to help is because we dug a hole by doing the opposite. And I'm not equivocating that it's easy. Your heat pump analogy is the perfect example where life-cycle effects should come into play. I think it would be very interesting to see a study of something like comparing a new EV with the impact of maintaining an older ICE car. I suspect a lot of EV purchases are about status veiled in sustainability. I want energy to be spent on big impact things like healthcare and food and sanitation. But considering ~60-70% of the economy is based on consumerism there's a lot of room to improve
- bumby 5y ago
  I agree, there's some tragedy of the commons here. But while I think technology will be one of the big factors, I also think it's used as a reason for people to avoid the cognitive dissonance of hard choices. Why should I have to do something unpleasant when I can just wait for technology to save us? We don't apply that same thinking to something like cigarette smoking ("why quit when I can just count on medical technology to save me?"). In abstract problems I think policy is needed to drive such collective action. The best outcomes seem to be when regulation and the market coexist toward the same goal.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    I think you're muddling the directionality here. What is your proposed "hard choice" that results in, say, my city being net zero or even drastically reducing its' emissions? I can independently do it, probably by using a lot of land, finding a favourable spot to plop my passivhaus, and wiping the balance sheet clean at some point (e.g. I pretend that all of the material going into the solar panels, the wood etc 'doesn't count'). But what do the other ten million people do? Demolish all of the existing buildings and rebuild from scratch with far more insulation etc? Move in with each other and leave half of the buildings to rot? This isn't intended as snark by the way, I just don't see the answer here. Is your point that we could slow down climate change a bit whilst we wait for the technology to catch up? Because it's definitely a hard requirement.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I don't think there is a single person that can do that and I'm not sure anyone would suggest there is. But saying a single action doesn't matter is not the same as saying a collection of single actions don't matter. Just like people shouldn't think working out once will magically make themselves fit, but string enough of those actions together and you can make an appreciable difference. The point is those other ten million people would need to make similar choices. Saying you can't control those other people comes across as just hand-washing yourself of responsibility. My point is that I think a lot of people use the technological argument to reduce any personal responsibility. It's true that I don't think we can simply conserve ourselves to net zero, but I do think it's a part of the solution. I often see people use the technological excuse as a way to not change and just keep the status quo so they don't have to feel the pain of sacrifice. It's easier to keep the problem in the abstract where one doesn't have to make concrete personal choices. Sometimes those tough choices are supporting policies that may align against your own personal, short-term self-interest.
throwaway22032 5y ago
Well, sure, fair enough, we need to get to the level at which our averaged personal consumption is (all_carbon_sinks / human_population). As far as I know that's such a tiny figure that it may as well effectively be zero compared to what everyone I know is doing at the moment, not only in the UK but in less wealthy countries around the world.
labster 5y ago
> Where are you getting the idea that personal footprints have to be reduced to zero or less? That assumption only holds if there are no carbon sinks. This is not really correct thinking, because you need to account for both sinks and sources of carbon. For instance, you could emit methane locally enough to, say, intensify a forest fire or dissolve methane clathrates. Then a forest somewhere else absorbs the original weight in carbon dioxide. This is net zero emissions for you, but certainly causes more warming. The best way to think of it is as a system with sources, sinks, and feedbacks. But really, the biggest adjustment to your life to reduce carbon emissions is to get involved in politics. Everyone reducing to net zero at home would make a tiny dent in the problem. The big users are transportation and concrete and metals.
- bumby 5y ago
  I agree with you on all of these points. I was simply advocating a system viewpoint (perhaps poorly) but you did a better job explaining. (One exception: I believe when you combine commercial and residential facilities, their respective energy use surpasses transport) By concrete, do you mean cement specifically? Or is there additional CO2 from the process of using aggregate?
  - labster 5y ago
    I was just giving a concrete example (pun intended). There’s still some rock crushing for aggregate, but the energy is mostly in cement. Concrete uses most of the cement, so it’s a good target. Japan uses something like four times the concrete of California, despite similar population, land area, and geography.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I've heard similar about concrete as well, but have had a difficult time putting it in context. "Cement (3%): carbon dioxide is produced as a byproduct of a chemical conversion process used in the production of clinker, a component of cement. In this reaction, limestone (CaCO3) is converted to lime (CaO), and produces CO2 as a byproduct. Cement production also produces emissions from energy inputs – these related emissions are included in ‘Energy Use in Industry’." Unfortunately, it doesn't further breakdown what percentage of the cement energy inputs contribute to GHG emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

fuzzfactor 5y ago

Tax is not the answer. Natural gas is the least expensive hydrocarbon coming from the oil well and the most expensive to contain. The money lost to the escaping gas is usually more than recovered by the value of the accompanying oil that is marketed. It has often been financially affordable to waste lots of gas since forever. Most of the wells will have total production "well" in excess of any tax that can actually be required on the gas. It will be too easy to pay new taxes. Even if an authority was capable of the most effective action ever seen, it should still not be allowed to go for the money grab. Needs regulation & enforcement instead, which doesn't make the same money, nor have a constant money stream.