7 ms·

Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Los Angeles literally had the cleanest air of a

by titzer 5y ago

Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Los Angeles literally had the cleanest air of any major city in the world [1]. How quickly we forgot...because the economy. Climate change is exactly the same situation, but at a much larger scale. Literally everything runs on the energy that we are currently getting from fossil fuels. We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Not for air quality, not for ecosystem destruction, not for catastrophic climate change. We're gonna fry this planet for our comfort and leisure. There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. We're barreling headlong into this and can't stop. [1] https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-has-lowest-pollution-in-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR1rtWVxjFl_bO_N6z8rh1yKx3qknw3UXKKhPSBb_zUWH5Pa7lf7tNYiZiA https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-h...

syshum 5y ago
>>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Largely this is correct, nor should we. >There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible. I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z. The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.
- titzer 5y ago
  > famine, disease and death Famine, disease and death have visited the human race in many eras in many ways. In a large part, the modern world's (temporary) escape of these things is bought through gluttonous use of energy. Like goblins in a vast project to extract undreamed of amounts of energy that just happened to be lying in deep dark pools, we suck this planet dry and claim it is our right to do so. In our mad dash to get at that incredible goldmine of serendipitous energy, we failed to plan for a transition off said energy sources to something sustainable. That's tempting enough for fate to deal us one nasty fall from a great height, but the real kicker is that burning that energy pumped a noxious debt into our atmosphere with long-ranging consequences for the entire biosphere. We've been voracious little goblins that have gnawed away at the support structure that holds up our existence, namely the remarkable green jewelry that adorns the one planet that can support us. > How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here? HA! I've always thought we should pay the consequences of our actions, and in these cases, both point a pretty damning finger in the direction of our own greed. In both cases, the loudest, shrillest voices were crying about money when life was in the balance. They used codewords like "economy" and "jobs" and "livelihood". But really, we failed to plan for a system where people could have just taken a coordinated timeout. A fragile engine, always tripping forward, that dies if it sputters. In reality, we can't think of any other way of living than the way we do now, a way of avarice and entitlement, one that would appall any generation of humans that came before us.
- acdha 5y ago
  >>> We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. >>Largely this is correct, nor should we. If we don't deal with climate change, we will definitely have those reductions both through direct environmental impact and the much greater cost of dealing with the problems created by climate change as they happen randomly all over the world. For example, think about the cost impact we've already seen from flood damage and ask what that'll look like in 30 years — housing becoming unsafe, mosquito-borne disease, impact on agriculture, etc. > That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death We have solutions which are being deployed now for a significant fraction of human emissions. Even if that's inadequate to hit carbon zero on its own, every reduction we make now buys us time to find alternatives for the remaining sources.
lake_vincent 5y ago
I honestly feel that the only "out" for us at this point is some kind of miraculous scientific discovery on the order of Einstein's theories that enables the development of some extraordinarily futuristic tech to save us. Obviously not realistic, but there is a one in a trillion chance of it happening, and it's kind of our only hope.
- syshum 5y ago
  The problem is the actual technology that would save us the US Government, and most climate activists do not want to invest in on a large scale Nuclear and Fusion. That is the only thing that will cover the oil based energy. Wind and Solar is a pipe dream
  - phs318u 5y ago
    Sorry, but if anything in your paragraph is a pipe dream - its fusion energy. Also, wind and solar may indeed be insufficient to meet the current energy footprint of first-worlders. However we know that most first-world energy consumers are ridiculously profligate. Basic lifestyle changes can significantly reduce consumer energy footprint. I know this because my family has done it without going full hippy-dippy. Passive cooling where possible (e.g. opening windows at night, using window awnings during the day). Home insulation. Using LED lighting. Drive a hybrid or more efficient ICE vehicle that's sized for your actual needs not your emotional needs. Don't buy a new car every 3 years. Change your driving style (gentle acceleration and braking). If it's a 5 minute drive - walk. Buy as local as possible. Don't use disposable everything e.g. wash dishes rather than churning through plastic plates, cups and cutlery. If solar is viable for your home and you can afford it, do it. If public transport is viable where you live, then use it. We are a family of 3 adults, living in a 4 bedroom home with 3 living areas. A/C heating and cooling. 2.3KW solar (which we've had for over 12 years). We've got 2 TV's, 2 computers, 3 phones, an Xbox, an iPad, a Wii (og), a dishwasher etc. Our electricity provider gives a comparison with "typical" families in the area. Our footprint is less than a "typical" 1 person household (which includes quite a few 1 and 2 br apartments). Not bad for not much effort. But even this is just too radical for most people. Which is why we are collectively screwed. Everyone wants someone else to do the dirty work/experience the pain/make the sacrifice/produce the magic, or at best we want someone else to make the first move. And yes, industry has a big part to play. But I am doing my bit because I am a physicist by training and accept the science (though as an average physicist, made a career in IT). I also do it because, though I am not individually responsible for the outcome, I am individually responsible for my actions - and I want to be able to one day look my grandkids in the eye and honestly say "I tried."
Wiseacre 5y ago
That is a very common screed that probably feels good but has no tangible effect. Can you be more specific? Which lifestyles need to be reduced? What specific action are you demanding specific individuals take?
- esalman 5y ago
  It very much depends on personal experience. I lived in SE Asia for the first 30 years of my life, then moved to the US. There are so many things that Americans and first world people take for granted what would be considered luxury in the other side of the world- and you have to live through that experience to come to that realization.
  - Wiseacre 5y ago
    So you're saying the western world needs to experience something drastic like third world poverty in order to actually change?
    - djbusby 5y ago
      No but the "West" would need to give up a good bunch of luxurious wants. Less trips to the bowling alley, less meat, less drive to the store to get just one thing.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Maybe start thinking type of consumption. A bowling alley where you walk or bike might not be too bad. I don't think they have very massive carbon footprint. On other hand car trips to skiing, or nature should be right out. And tourism in general outside immediate local vicinity. And then in general consume less, like electronics. Do we really need to replace them every other year or should once in five to ten be enough? And what do we serve with them? Could we start spending more effort to optimize energy consumption and transfer of data?
    - esalman 5y ago
      Not change your whole like in a drastic manner, but maybe at least live in the 3rd world for a significant amount of time- should be enough of an eye-opener for a lot of people.
sdb0 5y ago
If we do nothing my life will be completely fine. Currently we're on track to drastically reduce emissions and my life will be completely fine. You want to actively make my life worse. A conundrum.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
One thing that surprises me, which became more obvious as a result of the pandemic, and screamingly obvious as a result of Russia invading Ukraine, is the national security implications of fuel and energy security. What blows my mind is the chasm between national security paranoia due to terrorism and absolute inaction and denial on national security around energy. It may be more obvious since I'm in Australia, where we have boundless open spaces and abundant sunshine as well as some of the highest electricity costs in the world (despite also having an abundance of coal), in combination with being remote and dependent upon external sources of petrol / fuel; Australia has been in breach of the IEA obligations on fuel security for years[0][1]. Australia should be exemplary for the use of electric vehicles and solar power, and yet it lags behind much of the developed world. In addition to the current Australian government being rabidly anti-renewables, such as rolling back the carbon price policy in 2014[2][3] after it was put in place in 2011 that looked as if it made a measurable difference to Australia's carbon emissions[4]. I'm an angry motherfucker about it, and it's my primary vote-deciding issue. [0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-23/government-accused-of-doing-little-to-improve-fuel-security/10732978 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-23/government-accused-of... [1]: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Australias-Fuel-Security-Crisis-Is-Growing-Increasingly-Dire.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Australias-Fuel-S... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australia-kills-off-carbon-tax https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australi... [3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663 [4]: https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/ccep_crawford_anu_edu_au/2014-07/ccep1411.pdf https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publica... (table, page 9 - page number 7)
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  "The sudden rise in Solar PV installations in Australia since 2018 dramatically propelled the country from being considered a relative laggard to a strong leader in Solar PV development by mid 2019. With an installed photovoltaic capacity of 16.3 GW at the end of 2019, Australia has the highest per capita solar capacity"
  - wingworks 5y ago
wingworks 5y ago
This david attenborough doco shows the covid change pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
disambiguation 5y ago
> Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Yes, we're definitely not beyond the point of no return.. yet. Natures engine can still drive restoration. But what I also remember from covid is the plethora of sterilization and depopulation conspiracies. If we put 2 and 2 together..

by titzer 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

>>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Largely this is correct, nor should we. >There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible. I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z. The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.
titzer 5y ago
> famine, disease and death Famine, disease and death have visited the human race in many eras in many ways. In a large part, the modern world's (temporary) escape of these things is bought through gluttonous use of energy. Like goblins in a vast project to extract undreamed of amounts of energy that just happened to be lying in deep dark pools, we suck this planet dry and claim it is our right to do so. In our mad dash to get at that incredible goldmine of serendipitous energy, we failed to plan for a transition off said energy sources to something sustainable. That's tempting enough for fate to deal us one nasty fall from a great height, but the real kicker is that burning that energy pumped a noxious debt into our atmosphere with long-ranging consequences for the entire biosphere. We've been voracious little goblins that have gnawed away at the support structure that holds up our existence, namely the remarkable green jewelry that adorns the one planet that can support us. > How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here? HA! I've always thought we should pay the consequences of our actions, and in these cases, both point a pretty damning finger in the direction of our own greed. In both cases, the loudest, shrillest voices were crying about money when life was in the balance. They used codewords like "economy" and "jobs" and "livelihood". But really, we failed to plan for a system where people could have just taken a coordinated timeout. A fragile engine, always tripping forward, that dies if it sputters. In reality, we can't think of any other way of living than the way we do now, a way of avarice and entitlement, one that would appall any generation of humans that came before us.
acdha 5y ago
>>> We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. >>Largely this is correct, nor should we. If we don't deal with climate change, we will definitely have those reductions both through direct environmental impact and the much greater cost of dealing with the problems created by climate change as they happen randomly all over the world. For example, think about the cost impact we've already seen from flood damage and ask what that'll look like in 30 years — housing becoming unsafe, mosquito-borne disease, impact on agriculture, etc. > That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death We have solutions which are being deployed now for a significant fraction of human emissions. Even if that's inadequate to hit carbon zero on its own, every reduction we make now buys us time to find alternatives for the remaining sources.

lake_vincent 5y ago

I honestly feel that the only "out" for us at this point is some kind of miraculous scientific discovery on the order of Einstein's theories that enables the development of some extraordinarily futuristic tech to save us. Obviously not realistic, but there is a one in a trillion chance of it happening, and it's kind of our only hope.

syshum 5y ago
The problem is the actual technology that would save us the US Government, and most climate activists do not want to invest in on a large scale Nuclear and Fusion. That is the only thing that will cover the oil based energy. Wind and Solar is a pipe dream
- phs318u 5y ago
  Sorry, but if anything in your paragraph is a pipe dream - its fusion energy. Also, wind and solar may indeed be insufficient to meet the current energy footprint of first-worlders. However we know that most first-world energy consumers are ridiculously profligate. Basic lifestyle changes can significantly reduce consumer energy footprint. I know this because my family has done it without going full hippy-dippy. Passive cooling where possible (e.g. opening windows at night, using window awnings during the day). Home insulation. Using LED lighting. Drive a hybrid or more efficient ICE vehicle that's sized for your actual needs not your emotional needs. Don't buy a new car every 3 years. Change your driving style (gentle acceleration and braking). If it's a 5 minute drive - walk. Buy as local as possible. Don't use disposable everything e.g. wash dishes rather than churning through plastic plates, cups and cutlery. If solar is viable for your home and you can afford it, do it. If public transport is viable where you live, then use it. We are a family of 3 adults, living in a 4 bedroom home with 3 living areas. A/C heating and cooling. 2.3KW solar (which we've had for over 12 years). We've got 2 TV's, 2 computers, 3 phones, an Xbox, an iPad, a Wii (og), a dishwasher etc. Our electricity provider gives a comparison with "typical" families in the area. Our footprint is less than a "typical" 1 person household (which includes quite a few 1 and 2 br apartments). Not bad for not much effort. But even this is just too radical for most people. Which is why we are collectively screwed. Everyone wants someone else to do the dirty work/experience the pain/make the sacrifice/produce the magic, or at best we want someone else to make the first move. And yes, industry has a big part to play. But I am doing my bit because I am a physicist by training and accept the science (though as an average physicist, made a career in IT). I also do it because, though I am not individually responsible for the outcome, I am individually responsible for my actions - and I want to be able to one day look my grandkids in the eye and honestly say "I tried."

Wiseacre 5y ago

That is a very common screed that probably feels good but has no tangible effect. Can you be more specific? Which lifestyles need to be reduced? What specific action are you demanding specific individuals take?

esalman 5y ago
It very much depends on personal experience. I lived in SE Asia for the first 30 years of my life, then moved to the US. There are so many things that Americans and first world people take for granted what would be considered luxury in the other side of the world- and you have to live through that experience to come to that realization.
- Wiseacre 5y ago
  So you're saying the western world needs to experience something drastic like third world poverty in order to actually change?
  - djbusby 5y ago
    No but the "West" would need to give up a good bunch of luxurious wants. Less trips to the bowling alley, less meat, less drive to the store to get just one thing.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Maybe start thinking type of consumption. A bowling alley where you walk or bike might not be too bad. I don't think they have very massive carbon footprint. On other hand car trips to skiing, or nature should be right out. And tourism in general outside immediate local vicinity. And then in general consume less, like electronics. Do we really need to replace them every other year or should once in five to ten be enough? And what do we serve with them? Could we start spending more effort to optimize energy consumption and transfer of data?
  - esalman 5y ago
    Not change your whole like in a drastic manner, but maybe at least live in the 3rd world for a significant amount of time- should be enough of an eye-opener for a lot of people.

sdb0 5y ago

If we do nothing my life will be completely fine. Currently we're on track to drastically reduce emissions and my life will be completely fine. You want to actively make my life worse. A conundrum.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

One thing that surprises me, which became more obvious as a result of the pandemic, and screamingly obvious as a result of Russia invading Ukraine, is the national security implications of fuel and energy security. What blows my mind is the chasm between national security paranoia due to terrorism and absolute inaction and denial on national security around energy. It may be more obvious since I'm in Australia, where we have boundless open spaces and abundant sunshine as well as some of the highest electricity costs in the world (despite also having an abundance of coal), in combination with being remote and dependent upon external sources of petrol / fuel; Australia has been in breach of the IEA obligations on fuel security for years[0][1]. Australia should be exemplary for the use of electric vehicles and solar power, and yet it lags behind much of the developed world. In addition to the current Australian government being rabidly anti-renewables, such as rolling back the carbon price policy in 2014[2][3] after it was put in place in 2011 that looked as if it made a measurable difference to Australia's carbon emissions[4]. I'm an angry motherfucker about it, and it's my primary vote-deciding issue. [0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-23/government-accused-of-doing-little-to-improve-fuel-security/10732978 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-23/government-accused-of... [1]: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Australias-Fuel-Security-Crisis-Is-Growing-Increasingly-Dire.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Australias-Fuel-S... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australia-kills-off-carbon-tax https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/australi... [3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663 [4]: https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/ccep_crawford_anu_edu_au/2014-07/ccep1411.pdf https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publica... (table, page 9 - page number 7)

calvinmorrison 5y ago
"The sudden rise in Solar PV installations in Australia since 2018 dramatically propelled the country from being considered a relative laggard to a strong leader in Solar PV development by mid 2019. With an installed photovoltaic capacity of 16.3 GW at the end of 2019, Australia has the highest per capita solar capacity"
- wingworks 5y ago

wingworks 5y ago

This david attenborough doco shows the covid change pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28

disambiguation 5y ago

> Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Yes, we're definitely not beyond the point of no return.. yet. Natures engine can still drive restoration. But what I also remember from covid is the plethora of sterilization and depopulation conspiracies. If we put 2 and 2 together..