6 ms·

A couple things. First is that we are on track to overshoot the goal of limiting warming to 1.5C. It's now more a question of how much we are going to blow pas

A couple things. First is that we are on track to overshoot the goal of limiting warming to 1.5C. It's now more a question of how much we are going to blow past 1.5C. Every bit counts now and a pulse of very potent greenhouse gasses at this time is very unhelpful. 2. There could be tipping points that aren't predictable. Methane may temporarily add a small increase to the global average temps, but could end up being the difference for whether permafrost melt begins releasing large amounts of co2 and even more methane that take us up to some even higher temperatire equilibrium. Global warming is a massive unplanned, uncontrolled experiment with the thermal and chemical properties of the only biosphere we know of. The sooner we stop that experiment the safer humanity will be overall.

julienb_sea 5y ago
Alternatively, attempting to curtail human emissions to some arbitrary level will, unquestionably, have drastic impact on human quality of life worldwide and the impact will be particularly acute on the developing world and those in poverty in the developed world. Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. As such, the climate experiment will inevitably continue unabated, despite any of the self-damaging choices made by the developed world. Additionally, our ability to actually combat the acute impacts of climate change (i.e. construction of flood barriers, land reclamation, movement of people out of flood-prone areas) could easily be actively hampered by overzealous limits on human development associated with attempt to reduce emissions. In other words, this is a nuanced issue and we have little choice but to press onwards.
- KerrAvon 5y ago
  “Better things aren’t possible.”
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Given enough time climate change will have a drastic impact on human quality of life and it's the poorer parts of the world that will feel it most. We seem to be going through stages of climate denialism: Climate change doesn't exist -> it does exist but it isn't man made -> it is man made but it's too expensive and disruptive to fix -> ???
  - breakyerself 5y ago
    The last stage is ->it's happening, but it's too late and were all doomed anyway so lets just have a good time while we still can.
- simion314 5y ago
  >China and India will not play ball. That is a lame excuse, mostly used by people from developed countries that are responsible for the issue, so you dodge responsibility and also try to put blame on the developing country why you are continuing screwing the environment. It is like you have a history of you and your ancestors abusing your children and you don't want to stop because the new neighbor is also abusing his children too (I am thinking especially at coal plants and cars that have effects locally too, so cleaning yup your house means you will have healthier population and less CO2)
  - selfhifive 5y ago
    Quite frankly a lot of people in India and China don't even have the resources to generate emissions. ACs, Refrigerators, and cars are still unavailable to the lower middle class. Even the middle class can only have 2 out of those 3. A large chunk of public transport in the big cities in India and China is CNG and electric.
  - alex_sf 5y ago
    > It is like you have a history of you and your ancestors abusing your children and you don't want to stop because the new neighbor is also abusing his children too This is a poor metaphor. It's more akin to having a family history of child abuse, trying to stop the cycle, explaining to your neighbor why it's bad, and then your neighbor saying "well, your grandpa beat the shit out of your dad, so we get to beat our kids too!" And of course, the largest producer of CO2 isn't the US as you imply, it's China.
    - rtpg 5y ago
      I thought it was pretty well understood by now that given that manufacturing of goods destined for the US is happening in China or SE Asia, that there's effectively a miscount. It's not like china is sitting there burning coal for no reason. And all those ships are going to ports in the US and the like. Of course this is all a shared responsibility, but let's not act like all of those "CO2 emissions by country" calculations are not extremely fudged by how consumption, manufacturing, and recycling happen in various parts of the world.
- p1necone 5y ago
  Watching climate change deniers periodically change up their bullshit because the old bullshit got too obviously wrong has been equal parts hilarious and frustrating. I guess now we're at the "okay okay fine, it's a problem, and humans are causing it. But we should still do nothing to fix it, because... China?" Screaming right past the acceptance stage and in for another loop of denial.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    After that it will be "welp it's too late now".
  - refurb 5y ago
    Why is that unreasonable? US emissions are actually lower than in the past. But the US could go to zero and if China and India don't lower emission it won't matter. Tragedy of the commons and all.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      It depends how it goes to zero. US is a significant importer from China. If they go to zero through enforcement of produce-or-import-at-zero laws, it would also push China to improve or lose lots of business.
    - breakyerself 5y ago
      Because accepting the potential demise of modern complex society and the collapse of ecosystems and biodiversity world wide and a mass exctinction event because "Fuck it China and India are bad so lets just party until the end." Is fucking stupid. The proper framing is we need to reduce emissions and so does China and India so how do we facilitate that. The answer is to 1.) Reduce our own emissions to have the moral basis to push other countries to reduce their emissions. 2.) Tax imported goods based on the emissions created in their production. Incentivizing foreign countries to reduce their emissions to be competitive in US markets. 3.) Lobby other countries to do the same using the diplomatic means we have at our disposal.
      - 5y ago
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  China and India are nothing compared to the US, if you look at the relevant metrics - emissions per capita. The US is emitting the same as China or near enough not to matter, but doing so at less than a third of the population. The comparison with India is even more one-sided. Not to mention, much of China's emissions are actually coming from its factories supplying the US and Europe with goods. If we just give up on buying some of the goods, emissions will go down. Finally, to call any measures on combatting climate change that were enacted anywhere in the world "overzealous" is laughable. The only measure stat can actually put a dent in the ever increasing temperatures are those that will come with economic contraction - not just stopping the growth, but actually downsize our economies for a decade or two - but this is completely unthinkable to liberals. The best measures that are being taken today would have helped if they had been taken in the 1960s when the problem was first understood. Instead, we sacrificed the future for economic growth in the present, and are now doing minor improvements (wind and solar, electric cars) that will barely even reduce the rhythm at which emissions are increasing.
  - xscott 5y ago
    Emissions per capita is only relevant if you want to assign moral blame rather than solve the problem. Canada and Australia are higher per capita than the US [0], and you can demonize and crucify them all you want, but it doesn't stop more than 3% of the total problem. Similarly, you can send every person in the US back to the stone age, and you're still going to have about 80% of the problem unless you can get other countries to join along. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Edit: If every country on Earth had India's emissions per capita, we would be cutting global emissions to less than 25% of what they are today. Emissions per capita are relevant if you want to discuss a realistic expectation of how low a country's emissions can go. They are also directly relevant: every citizen of a country must be fed, must be given electricity, must use transportation, and must consume goods - each of these cost CO2 in quite direct proportion to the number of citizens. For example, China has a lot of room for improvement, but India does not, as it's already at lower emissions per capita than half the world (much lower than any EU country, for example). Global warming is not exclusively the problem of the global south. Poor people in China or India have the same rights to affordable electricity as people in Norway or Germany, which have higher emissions than China per person, despite the fact that they have outsourced plenty of emissions to China. Overall, if say we needed to reduce emissions by 50%, countries with higher emissions per capita will likely have to reduce MORE than that, as China and particularly India would incur much more harm to their hundreds of millions of citizens than Germany or the USA if they were to significantly reduce emissions.
- rvense 5y ago
  > Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. This is not true. We are all in the same frying pan and I don't know why people keep insisting that the others don't understand it. Of course they do. They have political pressures from industrialists and deniers just as we do here that might prevent immediate action, but they are not fundamentally different. Quite the opposite. Either way, why do we have to wait for others to move first. We know there's a problem, we know there are solutions, get to it.
- breakyerself 5y ago
  Even if the choice was between quality of life now and addressing climate change you haven't made a convincing argument for why maintaining peoples quality of life as it is now is worth risking a mass extinction event in the future. That being said I see no reason why doing any of the things mainstream scientists and economists are calling for would in any way diminish anyone's quality of life. If anything it will improve quality of life at the very least by reducing air pollution and it will prevent drastic reductions in quality of life in the coming decades from the effects of unchecked global warming. I really don't know where this crap even comes from. Like we get x amount of energy from fossil fuels. Therefore we must reduce energy usage by that much? Do you think that's what we're advocating for?

julienb_sea 5y ago

Alternatively, attempting to curtail human emissions to some arbitrary level will, unquestionably, have drastic impact on human quality of life worldwide and the impact will be particularly acute on the developing world and those in poverty in the developed world. Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. As such, the climate experiment will inevitably continue unabated, despite any of the self-damaging choices made by the developed world. Additionally, our ability to actually combat the acute impacts of climate change (i.e. construction of flood barriers, land reclamation, movement of people out of flood-prone areas) could easily be actively hampered by overzealous limits on human development associated with attempt to reduce emissions. In other words, this is a nuanced issue and we have little choice but to press onwards.

KerrAvon 5y ago
“Better things aren’t possible.”
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Given enough time climate change will have a drastic impact on human quality of life and it's the poorer parts of the world that will feel it most. We seem to be going through stages of climate denialism: Climate change doesn't exist -> it does exist but it isn't man made -> it is man made but it's too expensive and disruptive to fix -> ???
- breakyerself 5y ago
  The last stage is ->it's happening, but it's too late and were all doomed anyway so lets just have a good time while we still can.
simion314 5y ago
>China and India will not play ball. That is a lame excuse, mostly used by people from developed countries that are responsible for the issue, so you dodge responsibility and also try to put blame on the developing country why you are continuing screwing the environment. It is like you have a history of you and your ancestors abusing your children and you don't want to stop because the new neighbor is also abusing his children too (I am thinking especially at coal plants and cars that have effects locally too, so cleaning yup your house means you will have healthier population and less CO2)
- selfhifive 5y ago
  Quite frankly a lot of people in India and China don't even have the resources to generate emissions. ACs, Refrigerators, and cars are still unavailable to the lower middle class. Even the middle class can only have 2 out of those 3. A large chunk of public transport in the big cities in India and China is CNG and electric.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  > It is like you have a history of you and your ancestors abusing your children and you don't want to stop because the new neighbor is also abusing his children too This is a poor metaphor. It's more akin to having a family history of child abuse, trying to stop the cycle, explaining to your neighbor why it's bad, and then your neighbor saying "well, your grandpa beat the shit out of your dad, so we get to beat our kids too!" And of course, the largest producer of CO2 isn't the US as you imply, it's China.
  - rtpg 5y ago
    I thought it was pretty well understood by now that given that manufacturing of goods destined for the US is happening in China or SE Asia, that there's effectively a miscount. It's not like china is sitting there burning coal for no reason. And all those ships are going to ports in the US and the like. Of course this is all a shared responsibility, but let's not act like all of those "CO2 emissions by country" calculations are not extremely fudged by how consumption, manufacturing, and recycling happen in various parts of the world.
p1necone 5y ago
Watching climate change deniers periodically change up their bullshit because the old bullshit got too obviously wrong has been equal parts hilarious and frustrating. I guess now we're at the "okay okay fine, it's a problem, and humans are causing it. But we should still do nothing to fix it, because... China?" Screaming right past the acceptance stage and in for another loop of denial.
- ajuc 5y ago
  After that it will be "welp it's too late now".
- refurb 5y ago
  Why is that unreasonable? US emissions are actually lower than in the past. But the US could go to zero and if China and India don't lower emission it won't matter. Tragedy of the commons and all.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    It depends how it goes to zero. US is a significant importer from China. If they go to zero through enforcement of produce-or-import-at-zero laws, it would also push China to improve or lose lots of business.
  - breakyerself 5y ago
    Because accepting the potential demise of modern complex society and the collapse of ecosystems and biodiversity world wide and a mass exctinction event because "Fuck it China and India are bad so lets just party until the end." Is fucking stupid. The proper framing is we need to reduce emissions and so does China and India so how do we facilitate that. The answer is to 1.) Reduce our own emissions to have the moral basis to push other countries to reduce their emissions. 2.) Tax imported goods based on the emissions created in their production. Incentivizing foreign countries to reduce their emissions to be competitive in US markets. 3.) Lobby other countries to do the same using the diplomatic means we have at our disposal.
    - 5y ago
tsimionescu 5y ago
China and India are nothing compared to the US, if you look at the relevant metrics - emissions per capita. The US is emitting the same as China or near enough not to matter, but doing so at less than a third of the population. The comparison with India is even more one-sided. Not to mention, much of China's emissions are actually coming from its factories supplying the US and Europe with goods. If we just give up on buying some of the goods, emissions will go down. Finally, to call any measures on combatting climate change that were enacted anywhere in the world "overzealous" is laughable. The only measure stat can actually put a dent in the ever increasing temperatures are those that will come with economic contraction - not just stopping the growth, but actually downsize our economies for a decade or two - but this is completely unthinkable to liberals. The best measures that are being taken today would have helped if they had been taken in the 1960s when the problem was first understood. Instead, we sacrificed the future for economic growth in the present, and are now doing minor improvements (wind and solar, electric cars) that will barely even reduce the rhythm at which emissions are increasing.
- xscott 5y ago
  Emissions per capita is only relevant if you want to assign moral blame rather than solve the problem. Canada and Australia are higher per capita than the US [0], and you can demonize and crucify them all you want, but it doesn't stop more than 3% of the total problem. Similarly, you can send every person in the US back to the stone age, and you're still going to have about 80% of the problem unless you can get other countries to join along. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Edit: If every country on Earth had India's emissions per capita, we would be cutting global emissions to less than 25% of what they are today. Emissions per capita are relevant if you want to discuss a realistic expectation of how low a country's emissions can go. They are also directly relevant: every citizen of a country must be fed, must be given electricity, must use transportation, and must consume goods - each of these cost CO2 in quite direct proportion to the number of citizens. For example, China has a lot of room for improvement, but India does not, as it's already at lower emissions per capita than half the world (much lower than any EU country, for example). Global warming is not exclusively the problem of the global south. Poor people in China or India have the same rights to affordable electricity as people in Norway or Germany, which have higher emissions than China per person, despite the fact that they have outsourced plenty of emissions to China. Overall, if say we needed to reduce emissions by 50%, countries with higher emissions per capita will likely have to reduce MORE than that, as China and particularly India would incur much more harm to their hundreds of millions of citizens than Germany or the USA if they were to significantly reduce emissions.
rvense 5y ago
> Large, influential emitters like China and India will not play ball. This is not true. We are all in the same frying pan and I don't know why people keep insisting that the others don't understand it. Of course they do. They have political pressures from industrialists and deniers just as we do here that might prevent immediate action, but they are not fundamentally different. Quite the opposite. Either way, why do we have to wait for others to move first. We know there's a problem, we know there are solutions, get to it.
breakyerself 5y ago
Even if the choice was between quality of life now and addressing climate change you haven't made a convincing argument for why maintaining peoples quality of life as it is now is worth risking a mass extinction event in the future. That being said I see no reason why doing any of the things mainstream scientists and economists are calling for would in any way diminish anyone's quality of life. If anything it will improve quality of life at the very least by reducing air pollution and it will prevent drastic reductions in quality of life in the coming decades from the effects of unchecked global warming. I really don't know where this crap even comes from. Like we get x amount of energy from fossil fuels. Therefore we must reduce energy usage by that much? Do you think that's what we're advocating for?