3 ms·

I am really not trying to discourage anyone, and agree policy solutions should be tried, just trying to point out that actually getting this things done, especi

I am really not trying to discourage anyone, and agree policy solutions should be tried, just trying to point out that actually getting this things done, especially globally will be really really hard, possibly as hard or harder than technological solutions, which is why I find accusations of techno-optimism a bit rich/naive. > Calling that wishful is abdicating responsibility. It is not abdicating responsibly if you think other technological solutions will be more likely to succeed just a difference of opinion. On the contrary, I think people who believe we "just need to do this or that political thing" abdicating responsibility because they have not considered how to do it or why it has not happened yet. They can just hold these "correct" opinions and blame others and absolve themselves of responsibility. I guess I just don't see how these things can be done without some sort of force. Denying people the choice to begin with is the only way to get people to make choices that will harm their standard of living on average. This would require governments being far more authoritarian than we are used to or will likely accept. Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point.

wbsss4412 5y ago
> Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point. Why do you believe this to be the case? It seems like a lot of your pessimism is due to the fact that you think we would have to dramatically cut our standard of living if we don’t find technological solutions. I don’t believe this has basis.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  I mean the article we are commenting on is literally about climate change hitting faster than expected. IPCC reports are known to be very conservative.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    That isn’t really answering the question. The question is, is there inherently a massive trade off between our living standards and addressing climate, given there is no substantial change in our level of technology (you said we’d need to go backwards 2 centuries). If we “magically” implemented political solutions with proper urgency, does that necessarily entail a massive drop in living standards in your mind?
  - seiferteric 5y ago
    Think we hit the comment nesting limit so replying here. From what I know, we can't release any more carbon and in fact might need to go carbon negative, so to do that we would need to essentially shut down everything that emits carbon... Cars, trucks, cargo ships, trains, airplanes, eliminate animal agriculture, no more steel or concrete production, all coal, gas oil power production and many other industries would need to shut down. So yes, I think it would have quite a drastic effect on our standard of living. Some of these things in some parts of the world may someday become carbon neutral, but it will take a long time.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      If you frame the conversation that way then yes, there is zero way to meet that standard. You might as well not even try. Addressing climate change isn’t about being perfect at this point, it’s about averting ever increasing disaster scenarios, especially since the degree of the effects seems to be exponential with the amount of warming we see. All I see from so many people is the feeling that we might as well not even try/it’s all a waste of time.

wbsss4412 5y ago

> Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point. Why do you believe this to be the case? It seems like a lot of your pessimism is due to the fact that you think we would have to dramatically cut our standard of living if we don’t find technological solutions. I don’t believe this has basis.

seiferteric 5y ago
I mean the article we are commenting on is literally about climate change hitting faster than expected. IPCC reports are known to be very conservative.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  That isn’t really answering the question. The question is, is there inherently a massive trade off between our living standards and addressing climate, given there is no substantial change in our level of technology (you said we’d need to go backwards 2 centuries). If we “magically” implemented political solutions with proper urgency, does that necessarily entail a massive drop in living standards in your mind?
- seiferteric 5y ago
  Think we hit the comment nesting limit so replying here. From what I know, we can't release any more carbon and in fact might need to go carbon negative, so to do that we would need to essentially shut down everything that emits carbon... Cars, trucks, cargo ships, trains, airplanes, eliminate animal agriculture, no more steel or concrete production, all coal, gas oil power production and many other industries would need to shut down. So yes, I think it would have quite a drastic effect on our standard of living. Some of these things in some parts of the world may someday become carbon neutral, but it will take a long time.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    If you frame the conversation that way then yes, there is zero way to meet that standard. You might as well not even try. Addressing climate change isn’t about being perfect at this point, it’s about averting ever increasing disaster scenarios, especially since the degree of the effects seems to be exponential with the amount of warming we see. All I see from so many people is the feeling that we might as well not even try/it’s all a waste of time.