8 ms·

Well we have only tried for about 40 years so far, maybe in 10 people will take it seriously?

willis936 5y ago
We've only really tried for 0 years. Exxon knew about climate change in 1957 [0]. People beat the drum hard from 1977 to 1990. What's happened? Regulatory capture has only gotten worse. There is nothing to be optimistic about here. 0. https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?download=true https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?downloa...
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Nothing? We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete and nuclear power widespread. I think some level of saying “the sky is falling” is okay but you’re only going to be able to inspire voters with progress - negativity doesn’t win elections.
  - willis936 5y ago
    The negativity is needed because too many people think the sky is not falling. The can has been sufficiently kicked and the problem has become a fact of life. There hasn't been mass mobilizations for climate policy in 30 years. The oil barons won. People need to be fucking angry.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      Yet people still rail against an EV company because "tweets" and continue to suck on big auto that held us back on purpose because their factories were built for ICE engines, and ya'know, cheated on emission tests. But no, getting angry and emotional is not the answer. We're reducing our emissions, mostly thanks to natural gas (fracking) displacing coal, but part due to alternatives like wind and solar. Some states like Texas run on wind for the full day at times, only tapping into non-renewables during peak loads. We've made great progress and some people need to calm down or they look crazy (some are), diminishing their cause. Some people seem to treat "green" as a religion. The sin you're born with is your carbon footprint. You can do everything and it's still not enough. You have to flagellate yourself, you need to convert everyone else to live your lifestyle, you need to give this and that up. You need to live without electricity, without transportation, without meat, etc. Some positions are counter productive to the cause or are simply useless (banning straws instead of sanctioning foreign countries/companies for dumping plastic waste that they buy from us) Be a conservationist, not an environmentalist. Clean the Earth, make it better, but stop with the doomsday speeches and flagellation.
      - nightski 5y ago
        It's as if there aren't multiple issues at play. There can be securities fraud, China level spying on your driving, terrible quality issues (the Model S), and all sorts of other negative things that contrast the good that is Tesla. Spending 30k on a car is a huge financial decision and some people just can't afford to take that decision lightly no matter how much they believe in climate change. For context I own a fair bit of Tesla stock and am a big fan. But I am hesitant to buy one myself, as much as I'd love to.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        The reason people go overboard worrying about their carbon footprint is because fossil fuel companies have a strategy of making global warming 'our' fault, and a consequence of individual action instead of recognizing it's too large of a problem for us to tackle individually. We need government regulation in the form of a carbon tax. Want to drive a dodge viper to work? Knock yourself out. Your carbon taxes will help fund a few KW clean nuclear power.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        Ah yes, more taxes to pay for the taxes and over regulation on nuclear. The fossil fuel companies that you think are out to get you are the only ones actually reducing emissions. Fracking gave access to so much natural gas it displaced coal, reducing emissions year over year. Those energy companies also invest in wind farms, solar, everything. The gov gives out taxpayer money like hotcakes for "green" solutions, why not take advantage?
  - kahrl 5y ago
    Source? Nuclear power is highly unpopular and hanging on by a thread in the United States. Our reactors are in disrepair and do not make a profit without subsidies.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to lead by doing the unpopular thing, every now and again we get good ones. For all their flaws (and there are many, don't trust a Tory) our government in the UK has done a good-ish job with environmental policy. Not great, but not like the early Trump admin going full retard over fossil fuels, science etc. We even did a carbon tax and it seems to work.
      - Sharlin 5y ago
        > Not great, but not like the early Trump admin going full retard over fossil fuels, science etc. It's really concerning if "good-ish" now means "being better than the Trump admin at least"
      - ASalazarMX 5y ago
        > Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to lead by doing the unpopular thing The biggest flaw of democracy is that politicians need votes, for them and their party, and getting them is their main objective. They do unpopular things, but make immense efforts to spin it as desirable. Climate change will be properly addressed until the general population suffers from it, and threatens to vote for someone who actually does something. At that point, an emergency state could be declared and the votes won't be as valuable.
      - aksss 5y ago
        Was Trump's policy towards nuclear bad? I seem to recall that his admin green-lit in-country efforts that were effectively on ice for quite a while - TREAT, ARDP, the VTR, micro/small reactors, Vogtle approval. And an opening statement from Forbes article in Dec 2020: "By most accounts, President-elect Joe Biden will continue President Trump’s nuclear energy legacy — to aggressively develop U.S. technology for export to the international market within five to seven years." https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2020/12/01/biden-to-continue-trump-nuclear-energy-legacy-industry-calls-president-elect-to-open-international-market/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2020/12/01/biden...
  - this15testing 5y ago
    the drop in emissions we need to not pass 1.5C of warming is not within the time frame of construction/operation of full nuclear power (for the entire world, not just the US). Electric cars exist to (temporarily?) save the auto industry. The decrease we get in purely tailpipe emissions does not offset the supporting infrastructure, their construction, and the sprawl that they demand. Even Exxon is not putting 1.5C targets (where even then a lot of real people die) in their "sustainability" reports anymore. Everything needs to stop at 2030 at the latest, and I personally have no hope that that is possible.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    Hitting the brakes, after the car went over the cliff. We broke the planet. About the only we can do is to try to mitigate the damage. However, I don’t have a lot of hope for that. I’ll be fine. My kids might be fine. My grandchildren are screwed.
    - Sharlin 5y ago
      Not even hitting the brakes. We're over the cliff and people are still arguing over whether we should ease on the accelerator a bit and if so, how much.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      If you are rich, you’ll be fine. If you are poor, you better be lucky, or you’re fucked.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - landemva 5y ago
      Your children will likely be fine. Vikings had pastures on Greenland until global cooling turned it into snow and ice.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete One out of every 250 vehicles on the road is electric. > nuclear power widespread. We're not. What we're doing is burning natural gas for power generation widespread. We're slightly eased up off the accelerator.
- twofornone 5y ago
  No one knew about climate change in 1957. It was a theoretical possibility that required decades of research, development, and infrastructure to prove. You're talking about literal terraforming - no one was sure that such a thing was actually possible. And even today we are still discovering novel mechanisms which obscure, regulate, or amplify temperature fluctuations. The case against 195X oil companies is overstated - though it makes for a convenient scapegoat.
  - willis936 5y ago
    What you're saying is directly contradictory to the 1957 article authored by Humble Oil scientists. It's linked above. Also, your points are echoes of (wildly successful) fossil fuel disinformation campaigns. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf
  - runnerup 5y ago
    In response to: >"No one knew about climate change in 1957." Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has been known and published in mainstream news articles since at least 110 years ago.[0][1] It's been known and discussed in public by professional scientists for over 140 years[2]. The great inaugural Nobel Prize winner, Arrhenius, wrote a paper on the topic in 1896[3] which cited Fourier's publication from 1827[4]. More generally, global greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for at least 185 years[4], a decade before the last founding father of the United States died. ---------- 0: The Rodney and Otamatea Times (Aug 1912) https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... 1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341 https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=... 2: Nature (1882): https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896) https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 4: M ́emoire sur les Temp ́eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan ́etaires, M ́emoires d l’Acad ́emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 (1827): https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pd... (English Translation)

We've only really tried for 0 years. Exxon knew about climate change in 1957 [0]. People beat the drum hard from 1977 to 1990. What's happened? Regulatory capture has only gotten worse. There is nothing to be optimistic about here. 0. https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?download=true https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?downloa...

jimbob45 5y ago
Nothing? We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete and nuclear power widespread. I think some level of saying “the sky is falling” is okay but you’re only going to be able to inspire voters with progress - negativity doesn’t win elections.
- willis936 5y ago
  The negativity is needed because too many people think the sky is not falling. The can has been sufficiently kicked and the problem has become a fact of life. There hasn't been mass mobilizations for climate policy in 30 years. The oil barons won. People need to be fucking angry.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Yet people still rail against an EV company because "tweets" and continue to suck on big auto that held us back on purpose because their factories were built for ICE engines, and ya'know, cheated on emission tests. But no, getting angry and emotional is not the answer. We're reducing our emissions, mostly thanks to natural gas (fracking) displacing coal, but part due to alternatives like wind and solar. Some states like Texas run on wind for the full day at times, only tapping into non-renewables during peak loads. We've made great progress and some people need to calm down or they look crazy (some are), diminishing their cause. Some people seem to treat "green" as a religion. The sin you're born with is your carbon footprint. You can do everything and it's still not enough. You have to flagellate yourself, you need to convert everyone else to live your lifestyle, you need to give this and that up. You need to live without electricity, without transportation, without meat, etc. Some positions are counter productive to the cause or are simply useless (banning straws instead of sanctioning foreign countries/companies for dumping plastic waste that they buy from us) Be a conservationist, not an environmentalist. Clean the Earth, make it better, but stop with the doomsday speeches and flagellation.
    - nightski 5y ago
      It's as if there aren't multiple issues at play. There can be securities fraud, China level spying on your driving, terrible quality issues (the Model S), and all sorts of other negative things that contrast the good that is Tesla. Spending 30k on a car is a huge financial decision and some people just can't afford to take that decision lightly no matter how much they believe in climate change. For context I own a fair bit of Tesla stock and am a big fan. But I am hesitant to buy one myself, as much as I'd love to.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      The reason people go overboard worrying about their carbon footprint is because fossil fuel companies have a strategy of making global warming 'our' fault, and a consequence of individual action instead of recognizing it's too large of a problem for us to tackle individually. We need government regulation in the form of a carbon tax. Want to drive a dodge viper to work? Knock yourself out. Your carbon taxes will help fund a few KW clean nuclear power.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        Ah yes, more taxes to pay for the taxes and over regulation on nuclear. The fossil fuel companies that you think are out to get you are the only ones actually reducing emissions. Fracking gave access to so much natural gas it displaced coal, reducing emissions year over year. Those energy companies also invest in wind farms, solar, everything. The gov gives out taxpayer money like hotcakes for "green" solutions, why not take advantage?
- kahrl 5y ago
  Source? Nuclear power is highly unpopular and hanging on by a thread in the United States. Our reactors are in disrepair and do not make a profit without subsidies.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to lead by doing the unpopular thing, every now and again we get good ones. For all their flaws (and there are many, don't trust a Tory) our government in the UK has done a good-ish job with environmental policy. Not great, but not like the early Trump admin going full retard over fossil fuels, science etc. We even did a carbon tax and it seems to work.
    - Sharlin 5y ago
      > Not great, but not like the early Trump admin going full retard over fossil fuels, science etc. It's really concerning if "good-ish" now means "being better than the Trump admin at least"
    - ASalazarMX 5y ago
      > Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to lead by doing the unpopular thing The biggest flaw of democracy is that politicians need votes, for them and their party, and getting them is their main objective. They do unpopular things, but make immense efforts to spin it as desirable. Climate change will be properly addressed until the general population suffers from it, and threatens to vote for someone who actually does something. At that point, an emergency state could be declared and the votes won't be as valuable.
    - aksss 5y ago
      Was Trump's policy towards nuclear bad? I seem to recall that his admin green-lit in-country efforts that were effectively on ice for quite a while - TREAT, ARDP, the VTR, micro/small reactors, Vogtle approval. And an opening statement from Forbes article in Dec 2020: "By most accounts, President-elect Joe Biden will continue President Trump’s nuclear energy legacy — to aggressively develop U.S. technology for export to the international market within five to seven years." https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2020/12/01/biden-to-continue-trump-nuclear-energy-legacy-industry-calls-president-elect-to-open-international-market/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2020/12/01/biden...
- this15testing 5y ago
  the drop in emissions we need to not pass 1.5C of warming is not within the time frame of construction/operation of full nuclear power (for the entire world, not just the US). Electric cars exist to (temporarily?) save the auto industry. The decrease we get in purely tailpipe emissions does not offset the supporting infrastructure, their construction, and the sprawl that they demand. Even Exxon is not putting 1.5C targets (where even then a lot of real people die) in their "sustainability" reports anymore. Everything needs to stop at 2030 at the latest, and I personally have no hope that that is possible.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  Hitting the brakes, after the car went over the cliff. We broke the planet. About the only we can do is to try to mitigate the damage. However, I don’t have a lot of hope for that. I’ll be fine. My kids might be fine. My grandchildren are screwed.
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    Not even hitting the brakes. We're over the cliff and people are still arguing over whether we should ease on the accelerator a bit and if so, how much.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    If you are rich, you’ll be fine. If you are poor, you better be lucky, or you’re fucked.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - landemva 5y ago
    Your children will likely be fine. Vikings had pastures on Greenland until global cooling turned it into snow and ice.
- vkou 5y ago
  > We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete One out of every 250 vehicles on the road is electric. > nuclear power widespread. We're not. What we're doing is burning natural gas for power generation widespread. We're slightly eased up off the accelerator.
twofornone 5y ago
No one knew about climate change in 1957. It was a theoretical possibility that required decades of research, development, and infrastructure to prove. You're talking about literal terraforming - no one was sure that such a thing was actually possible. And even today we are still discovering novel mechanisms which obscure, regulate, or amplify temperature fluctuations. The case against 195X oil companies is overstated - though it makes for a convenient scapegoat.
- willis936 5y ago
  What you're saying is directly contradictory to the 1957 article authored by Humble Oil scientists. It's linked above. Also, your points are echoes of (wildly successful) fossil fuel disinformation campaigns. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf
- runnerup 5y ago
  In response to: >"No one knew about climate change in 1957." Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has been known and published in mainstream news articles since at least 110 years ago.[0][1] It's been known and discussed in public by professional scientists for over 140 years[2]. The great inaugural Nobel Prize winner, Arrhenius, wrote a paper on the topic in 1896[3] which cited Fourier's publication from 1827[4]. More generally, global greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for at least 185 years[4], a decade before the last founding father of the United States died. ---------- 0: The Rodney and Otamatea Times (Aug 1912) https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... 1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341 https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=... 2: Nature (1882): https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896) https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 4: M ́emoire sur les Temp ́eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan ́etaires, M ́emoires d l’Acad ́emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 (1827): https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pd... (English Translation)