11 ms·

Climate change won’t wait for future innovation – we need action now

129 points by stichers 5y ago

joeberon 5y ago
cloutchaser 5y ago
I'm hoping we get some new green movement soon that is much more pragmatic about how we can actually reduce reliance on hydrocarbons. Nuclear, and more natural gas are the answer, at least transitionally. Oh, and also I'd like to see green movements taking less Russian money... "People think Europe depends on Russia for energy because it lacks its own, but 15 years ago Europe exported more natural gas than Russia does today. Now, Russia exports 3x more gas than Europe produces. Why? Because climate activists, partly funded by Russia, blocked fracking." https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1499386637066727424 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993866370667274... "In 2014, NATO's secretary general revealed Russia was funding climate activists, saying, “Russia... engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations working against shale gas to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas" https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1499387277721550849 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993872777215508...
- diob 5y ago
  I mean, fracking shouldn't be allowed. I live in Arizona, and the electric companies here make it hell for solar owners. I don't understand it.
- profunctor 5y ago
  Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?
  - cjbgkagh 5y ago
    I assume because it’s cheap standby power that can make the whole renewable setup more affordable. Gas turbines don’t need expensive boilers and can ramp up and down quickly.
    - eldaisfish 5y ago
      natural gas is in fact a terrible alternative. It tends to work in places that already have natural gas or ones that can afford it. A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably. You need to do this because third world countries can't afford renewables, or there simply isn't enough supply to roll it out quickly (within 10-20 years). But they burn a lot of wood, which is unnecessary, and can be switched to gas cheaply and easily. Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally. The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.
    - CaptArmchair 5y ago
      > third world countries I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations. > can be switched to gas cheaply and easily I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography. Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal. Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West. At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts. In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
      - megapolitics 5y ago
        >I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Agree on nuclear, but natural gas isn't necessarily better than coal after accounting for methane leaks. The industry has lobbied hard against any requirements to monitor or mitigate those leaks.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Barring breakthroughs in the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, nuclear power is not a short term solution. We can't build thousands of nuclear reactors globally and staff them with qualified personnel when constructing a small handful of reactors already takes 15+ years.
jesperlang 5y ago
I cannot upvote this enough. We have a strict budget left for carbon emissions. It's not an exam in the future that we are currently studying for to pass. But thinking in budget terms also means talking about budgeting/rationing but I guess it needs to become really bad before we even dare to touch that...
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  What happens when the budget runs out?
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    Shit goes south with no way to recover?
    - rhino369 5y ago
      As far as I understand it, it not a binary "we are fucked" / "we are unfucked" if you are talking globally, or even large nations like the US, EU, Russia, China, etc. It's a gradient. The more CO2, the warmer earth gets.
      - lopis 5y ago
        It's not just that. There are critical mass effects where, after a certain level, positive feedback loops will cascade to all systems. There's definitely a point where we're fucked and won't be able to unfuck ourselves.
        rhino369 5y ago
        I'm far from an expert on climate. But my understanding when I looked into these issues ~8 years ago for a class, was that massive positive feedback loop stuff was not really accepted by the mainstream of scientists. Of course there are positive feedback components, but there are negative ones too. And stuff like clathrate gun, etc., can't be found in the IPCC reports. The 2 degree goal is more or less arbitrary. edit: by that I mean 1.9 isn't much better than 2.1--not that 2.1 is no big deal
nathias 5y ago
there is also a cool side effect: maybe the world domination game shifts from oil to innovation
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Innovation is tricky. In practice it often boils down to the ability to generate hype around bad ideas, as there is no process for reliably exchanging money for (useful) new ideas. That's all well and good if you want to make money, the market operates on hype, but it's less good if you need to make some particular change quickly.
thatcherc 5y ago
The main action advocated by the author here is to increase efficiency (in insulation, appliances, food production, transportation) as a means to curb CO2 emissions and slow climate change - all very important. Lately I've been reading Saul Griffith's book "Electrify" which proposes a different tack - "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly. Interestingly, doing so would reduce total US energy consumption[0] to about half its current levels while still allowing big trucks and air conditioning and fun energy-intensive things. A lot of that energy reduction comes from a) the higher intrinsic efficiencies of electrical machines and generation compared to heat engines and b) no longer needing energy to run fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and refining processes. Griffith is also careful to note that climate solutions are "yes ands", so we should increase efficiencies as much as we can in addition to electrifying as much as we can (and also pursuing ambitious strategies like fusion and CCS). Definitely make a great case of rolling out existing solutions like solar and wind in a big way to bring down carbon emissions really quickly. [0] - the book focuses only on the US, but results could be similar in countries with similar economies.
- hgomersall 5y ago
  It's much easier to maintain lifestyles by being more efficient than by any other means. Most energy is simply wasted. There is basically no downside to things like properly insulating houses (except perhaps the bottom line of the property developers).
  - stickyricky 5y ago
    And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.
    - distances 5y ago
      In the Nordics the baseline is triple glazed windows and mechanical ventilation with exhaust air heat recovery. I'm sure doing the same elsewhere would be a good start at least
giorgioz 5y ago
Yes there are a lot of ways to reduced emissions. We should also do now the ones that are already available right now (like home insulation). On the same line though decommissioning nuclear plants in Europe was always a bad move. Italy abandoned nuclear with a referendum 1987 just after Chernobyll and again voted against nuclear in 2011. Italy then buys nuclear energy from France and gas from Russia. This is just putting the head in sand and moving the problems out of sight. Germany is/was about to make the same mistake. Nuclear is a far from perfect solution available now which is beeing replaced for the hope of a much better solution much later on. We are not sure we'll get the much better solutions down the line. We should make all the green(ish) bets we can.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Is Nuclear available now? In the UK it seems to take decades to build a nuclear power plant
  - eldaisfish 5y ago
    Even if isn't available now, you can start building now. This isn't the gotcha many think it is. A nuclear plant will provide decades of energy without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. In all that time, build towards a future where the nuclear plant isn't needed. The promise of a wind and solar future is still several decades in the future. Why wait for that when we have a problem right now?
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Because building a sufficient number on nuclear reactors will take a comparable amount of time to building a sufficient number of wind turbines, PV panels, and storage, while also posing problems with public acceptance and nuclear proliferation. It's also unclear whether that would be cheaper or more expensive.
  - giorgioz 5y ago
    When Italians voted against nuclear in the 1987 referendum there were 2 active nuclear plants in Italy. We switched them off and de-commission them. Switched off reactors and consumed nuclear piles are still a radiation hazard and don't produce anymore energy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/italy.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
WaitWaitWha 5y ago
I am all in to be a good custodian of the world. But I am tired of the insipid, agitated state, screaming and pushing fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). When I was a young man, I was told the world will freeze, and within five years we will all die. (Good times for fur trade!) Then, the ozone layer will be gone, and within five years we will all die. (SPF 5000 anyone?) Suddenly in the early '80s it flipped to the world is warming, and within five years we will all die. More recently, it just 'climate change' because the FUD has been so rapidly changed, and within five years we will all die. No one is denying that the climate changes. What people are tired of and denying is the FUD. Every single generation thinks all previous generations where idiots; but we, WE know it much better and are smarter then all! Wait till next generation, and see what they tell about us. (Edit: Reference to an article with news clippings of the above https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca... ) edit2: let the down voting begin!
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  According to AOC, the earth will end in 6 years (she predicted 10 years remaining 4 years ago). I'm not aware of an update to her estimate.
  - jnsaff2 5y ago
    That number likely came from the 2018 IPCC report which said pretty much this: if something does not happen then by 2030 the there is no realistic pathway to stay belos 2C increase in temperature. World would not end in 2030, but irreversible change would be locked in. Obviously AOC might have been simplifying this or whoever reported on it might have dumbed it down or pushed their own agenda.
    - kerneloftruth 5y ago
      It was actually 12 years: https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-150517060.html https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-1505170... The point is, beware making quantified predictions. Climate change is real, but when one makes hyperbolic predictions with a quantified timeframe, and then it doesn't happen, the argument is weakened, and skeptics are reinforced. Al Gore learned the same lesson.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smashah 5y ago
The UK Government is not serious about climate catastrophe as evident by the laws around personal electric micro-mobility, amongst other things.
- iso1210 5y ago
  There are many examples of the UK not being serious in dealing with it, laws around e-scooters on public loand is fairly low down that list though
belorn 5y ago
For a very long time now the basic premise has been to go to the largest connected market that exist and buy from whoever sell energy at the cheapest price. When nations want to encourage more renewables they add subsidies in hope that this will enable some companies to deliver a product onto the market that has a lower sticker price. In some cases they offer to pay the subsidies as a bonus on top of the market price, thus enabling companies to lower the sticker price below that of competitors. This system works great if you want to optimize for price. Even if a nation want to sell cheap in order to fund an invasion force, the buyer can continue as before and just buy based on the price. Similar for carbon emissions, as the buyer doesn't feel responsible for the subsidies. If there is an offer on the connected market then the buyer can buy it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
malloryerik 5y ago
Bill McKibben has an idea for fighting climate change and Putin at the same time. Basically, he has a plan to get Europe decarbonized enough by next winter that it doesn't need Russian gas or oil. Article -- This is how we defeat Putin and other petrostate autocrats https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-is-how-we-defeat-putin-and-other-petrostate-autocrats https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-i... Video Interview -- https://youtu.be/rJ9XfdbCddk https://youtu.be/rJ9XfdbCddk Bill McKibben: How To Defeat Putin and Climate Change | Amanpour and Company
throwaway-m3232 5y ago
I think there is a contradiction: on one hand, consumption should be reduced for sustainable production. But I have not heard anything on reducing the work time. I do not think that there can be a consensus that asks to work more for less. It is not possible for some type of workers, who already work 12 h/day and have no savings. Something should change in what work is, how production is organized and profit is produced or I do not see how else this contradiction can be resolved. The work can be organized by reducing work time (workday) to produce all there is necessary for biological living. Say 4 h workday (see productivity growth on why this is possible), no wage cut, at production factors, construction, food, etc. This 4 hour workday will be enough for some good level of living. And everything else can be produced somehow else, not as work. Then it will not be necessary to keep production of some object only for the sake of paying for a house, thus consumption will slightly lower but work day will lower, too.
oxplot 5y ago
One avenue which doesn't require a lot of people/companies to participate, is carbon capture. Not only can it reduce the net emission, but it can even reverse the trend. One example is SpaceX which has plans to produce some of its methane fuel for starship by carbon capture using solar.
jokoon 5y ago
Whatever people say, the solution is less buying power for everyone. For now, that's the only solution. It's hard to hear, but any economic crisis is beneficial for the environment. There is no way we can make enough changes in 10 years, so things must go the other way. Jean Marc Jancovici says emissions must be shrink 5% per day. You can't have a thriving economy anymore. Of course nobody wants to make any effort, because it means selling your car, turning off heating/AC, forgetting that vacation, forgetting that steak, even quitting your job, etc etc. On one hand, we think people who live in the forest, far from everything, are crazy people. But the reality is that a life of sobriety, economic degrowth, austerity, those are the things that are needed to *save the world*. We need to accept to eat pasta, rice and vitamins for a long time unless civilization moves away entirely from fossil fuels so that it can properly adapt. If you refuse to accept that you must reduce your living standard, you are part of the problem, plain and simple. Politicians and companies will do exactly NOTHING if it angers consumers or if consumers keep giving those companies money. I'm often quite pessimistic about the ability of politicians to change course about co2 emissions. Consumers have too much powers.
- throwaway-m3232 5y ago
  Yes, I too think that GDP growth goal is not very compatible with sustainable production. But not to the point where you have less kinds of food. But the main problem I think is: there is no option to work less. Lets say you want to consume less, what will you do with your money, throw away? So I think that the workday should be reduced.
carapace 5y ago
> Of the hundreds of strategy plans I’ve analysed over the five years I’ve been studying energy, almost every single one ensures three things. First, that global citizens will still buy a lot of energy. Second, that control of energy resources will remain concentrated among a few industry players. Third, that energy-intensive companies and their shareholders will still make huge profits. And there it is: the big boys are addicted to oil profits and "the spice must flow". Last time I looked (a few years ago) the ten most profitable companies in the world were nine oil companies and Apple. (As I type this there's a guy outside driving a gas-powered noisy golf-cart thing with a tank and a gas-powered pump spraying plant poison on the lawn. It's a microcosm of what's wrong with us. Poisoning the air, land, and water, polluting sound itself, to maintain a wasteland of useless grass! What's more, you could make a lawn that maintained itself and fed some livestock, and not waste this guy on this stupid destructive job.) Anyhow... Here's a link to an old "brain dump" comment of mine in re: systems of agriculture. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827329 There's also a great case to be made for integrated alcohol fuel production on a local ecologically harmonious scale to power ICE vehicles (or hybrids) In many cases it makes way more sense that going directly for full electrification of cars, trucks, and busses, etc. (I know of http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 but there are others.) As pointed out in TFA we have all the solutions and technology we really need already. What seems to be missing is the knowledge and will to employ them.

129 points by stichers 5y ago

I'm hoping we get some new green movement soon that is much more pragmatic about how we can actually reduce reliance on hydrocarbons. Nuclear, and more natural gas are the answer, at least transitionally. Oh, and also I'd like to see green movements taking less Russian money... "People think Europe depends on Russia for energy because it lacks its own, but 15 years ago Europe exported more natural gas than Russia does today. Now, Russia exports 3x more gas than Europe produces. Why? Because climate activists, partly funded by Russia, blocked fracking." https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1499386637066727424 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993866370667274... "In 2014, NATO's secretary general revealed Russia was funding climate activists, saying, “Russia... engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations working against shale gas to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas" https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1499387277721550849 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14993872777215508...

diob 5y ago
I mean, fracking shouldn't be allowed. I live in Arizona, and the electric companies here make it hell for solar owners. I don't understand it.
profunctor 5y ago
Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  I assume because it’s cheap standby power that can make the whole renewable setup more affordable. Gas turbines don’t need expensive boilers and can ramp up and down quickly.
  - eldaisfish 5y ago
    natural gas is in fact a terrible alternative. It tends to work in places that already have natural gas or ones that can afford it. A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably. You need to do this because third world countries can't afford renewables, or there simply isn't enough supply to roll it out quickly (within 10-20 years). But they burn a lot of wood, which is unnecessary, and can be switched to gas cheaply and easily. Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally. The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    > third world countries I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations. > can be switched to gas cheaply and easily I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography. Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal. Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West. At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts. In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
    - megapolitics 5y ago
      >I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.
DennisP 5y ago
Agree on nuclear, but natural gas isn't necessarily better than coal after accounting for methane leaks. The industry has lobbied hard against any requirements to monitor or mitigate those leaks.
adrianN 5y ago
Barring breakthroughs in the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, nuclear power is not a short term solution. We can't build thousands of nuclear reactors globally and staff them with qualified personnel when constructing a small handful of reactors already takes 15+ years.

jesperlang 5y ago

I cannot upvote this enough. We have a strict budget left for carbon emissions. It's not an exam in the future that we are currently studying for to pass. But thinking in budget terms also means talking about budgeting/rationing but I guess it needs to become really bad before we even dare to touch that...

JacobThreeThree 5y ago
What happens when the budget runs out?
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  Shit goes south with no way to recover?
  - rhino369 5y ago
    As far as I understand it, it not a binary "we are fucked" / "we are unfucked" if you are talking globally, or even large nations like the US, EU, Russia, China, etc. It's a gradient. The more CO2, the warmer earth gets.
    - lopis 5y ago
      It's not just that. There are critical mass effects where, after a certain level, positive feedback loops will cascade to all systems. There's definitely a point where we're fucked and won't be able to unfuck ourselves.
      - rhino369 5y ago
        I'm far from an expert on climate. But my understanding when I looked into these issues ~8 years ago for a class, was that massive positive feedback loop stuff was not really accepted by the mainstream of scientists. Of course there are positive feedback components, but there are negative ones too. And stuff like clathrate gun, etc., can't be found in the IPCC reports. The 2 degree goal is more or less arbitrary. edit: by that I mean 1.9 isn't much better than 2.1--not that 2.1 is no big deal

nathias 5y ago

there is also a cool side effect: maybe the world domination game shifts from oil to innovation

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Innovation is tricky. In practice it often boils down to the ability to generate hype around bad ideas, as there is no process for reliably exchanging money for (useful) new ideas. That's all well and good if you want to make money, the market operates on hype, but it's less good if you need to make some particular change quickly.

thatcherc 5y ago

The main action advocated by the author here is to increase efficiency (in insulation, appliances, food production, transportation) as a means to curb CO2 emissions and slow climate change - all very important. Lately I've been reading Saul Griffith's book "Electrify" which proposes a different tack - "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly. Interestingly, doing so would reduce total US energy consumption[0] to about half its current levels while still allowing big trucks and air conditioning and fun energy-intensive things. A lot of that energy reduction comes from a) the higher intrinsic efficiencies of electrical machines and generation compared to heat engines and b) no longer needing energy to run fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and refining processes. Griffith is also careful to note that climate solutions are "yes ands", so we should increase efficiencies as much as we can in addition to electrifying as much as we can (and also pursuing ambitious strategies like fusion and CCS). Definitely make a great case of rolling out existing solutions like solar and wind in a big way to bring down carbon emissions really quickly. [0] - the book focuses only on the US, but results could be similar in countries with similar economies.

hgomersall 5y ago
It's much easier to maintain lifestyles by being more efficient than by any other means. Most energy is simply wasted. There is basically no downside to things like properly insulating houses (except perhaps the bottom line of the property developers).
- stickyricky 5y ago
  And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.
  - distances 5y ago
    In the Nordics the baseline is triple glazed windows and mechanical ventilation with exhaust air heat recovery. I'm sure doing the same elsewhere would be a good start at least

giorgioz 5y ago

Yes there are a lot of ways to reduced emissions. We should also do now the ones that are already available right now (like home insulation). On the same line though decommissioning nuclear plants in Europe was always a bad move. Italy abandoned nuclear with a referendum 1987 just after Chernobyll and again voted against nuclear in 2011. Italy then buys nuclear energy from France and gas from Russia. This is just putting the head in sand and moving the problems out of sight. Germany is/was about to make the same mistake. Nuclear is a far from perfect solution available now which is beeing replaced for the hope of a much better solution much later on. We are not sure we'll get the much better solutions down the line. We should make all the green(ish) bets we can.

iso1210 5y ago
Is Nuclear available now? In the UK it seems to take decades to build a nuclear power plant
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  Even if isn't available now, you can start building now. This isn't the gotcha many think it is. A nuclear plant will provide decades of energy without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. In all that time, build towards a future where the nuclear plant isn't needed. The promise of a wind and solar future is still several decades in the future. Why wait for that when we have a problem right now?
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Because building a sufficient number on nuclear reactors will take a comparable amount of time to building a sufficient number of wind turbines, PV panels, and storage, while also posing problems with public acceptance and nuclear proliferation. It's also unclear whether that would be cheaper or more expensive.
- giorgioz 5y ago
  When Italians voted against nuclear in the 1987 referendum there were 2 active nuclear plants in Italy. We switched them off and de-commission them. Switched off reactors and consumed nuclear piles are still a radiation hazard and don't produce anymore energy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/italy.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

WaitWaitWha 5y ago

I am all in to be a good custodian of the world. But I am tired of the insipid, agitated state, screaming and pushing fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). When I was a young man, I was told the world will freeze, and within five years we will all die. (Good times for fur trade!) Then, the ozone layer will be gone, and within five years we will all die. (SPF 5000 anyone?) Suddenly in the early '80s it flipped to the world is warming, and within five years we will all die. More recently, it just 'climate change' because the FUD has been so rapidly changed, and within five years we will all die. No one is denying that the climate changes. What people are tired of and denying is the FUD. Every single generation thinks all previous generations where idiots; but we, WE know it much better and are smarter then all! Wait till next generation, and see what they tell about us. (Edit: Reference to an article with news clippings of the above https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca... ) edit2: let the down voting begin!

kerneloftruth 5y ago
According to AOC, the earth will end in 6 years (she predicted 10 years remaining 4 years ago). I'm not aware of an update to her estimate.
- jnsaff2 5y ago
  That number likely came from the 2018 IPCC report which said pretty much this: if something does not happen then by 2030 the there is no realistic pathway to stay belos 2C increase in temperature. World would not end in 2030, but irreversible change would be locked in. Obviously AOC might have been simplifying this or whoever reported on it might have dumbed it down or pushed their own agenda.
  - kerneloftruth 5y ago
    It was actually 12 years: https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-150517060.html https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-1505170... The point is, beware making quantified predictions. Climate change is real, but when one makes hyperbolic predictions with a quantified timeframe, and then it doesn't happen, the argument is weakened, and skeptics are reinforced. Al Gore learned the same lesson.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smashah 5y ago

The UK Government is not serious about climate catastrophe as evident by the laws around personal electric micro-mobility, amongst other things.

iso1210 5y ago
There are many examples of the UK not being serious in dealing with it, laws around e-scooters on public loand is fairly low down that list though

belorn 5y ago

For a very long time now the basic premise has been to go to the largest connected market that exist and buy from whoever sell energy at the cheapest price. When nations want to encourage more renewables they add subsidies in hope that this will enable some companies to deliver a product onto the market that has a lower sticker price. In some cases they offer to pay the subsidies as a bonus on top of the market price, thus enabling companies to lower the sticker price below that of competitors. This system works great if you want to optimize for price. Even if a nation want to sell cheap in order to fund an invasion force, the buyer can continue as before and just buy based on the price. Similar for carbon emissions, as the buyer doesn't feel responsible for the subsidies. If there is an offer on the connected market then the buyer can buy it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

malloryerik 5y ago

Bill McKibben has an idea for fighting climate change and Putin at the same time. Basically, he has a plan to get Europe decarbonized enough by next winter that it doesn't need Russian gas or oil. Article -- This is how we defeat Putin and other petrostate autocrats https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-is-how-we-defeat-putin-and-other-petrostate-autocrats https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-i... Video Interview -- https://youtu.be/rJ9XfdbCddk https://youtu.be/rJ9XfdbCddk Bill McKibben: How To Defeat Putin and Climate Change | Amanpour and Company

throwaway-m3232 5y ago

I think there is a contradiction: on one hand, consumption should be reduced for sustainable production. But I have not heard anything on reducing the work time. I do not think that there can be a consensus that asks to work more for less. It is not possible for some type of workers, who already work 12 h/day and have no savings. Something should change in what work is, how production is organized and profit is produced or I do not see how else this contradiction can be resolved. The work can be organized by reducing work time (workday) to produce all there is necessary for biological living. Say 4 h workday (see productivity growth on why this is possible), no wage cut, at production factors, construction, food, etc. This 4 hour workday will be enough for some good level of living. And everything else can be produced somehow else, not as work. Then it will not be necessary to keep production of some object only for the sake of paying for a house, thus consumption will slightly lower but work day will lower, too.

oxplot 5y ago

One avenue which doesn't require a lot of people/companies to participate, is carbon capture. Not only can it reduce the net emission, but it can even reverse the trend. One example is SpaceX which has plans to produce some of its methane fuel for starship by carbon capture using solar.

jokoon 5y ago

Whatever people say, the solution is less buying power for everyone. For now, that's the only solution. It's hard to hear, but any economic crisis is beneficial for the environment. There is no way we can make enough changes in 10 years, so things must go the other way. Jean Marc Jancovici says emissions must be shrink 5% per day. You can't have a thriving economy anymore. Of course nobody wants to make any effort, because it means selling your car, turning off heating/AC, forgetting that vacation, forgetting that steak, even quitting your job, etc etc. On one hand, we think people who live in the forest, far from everything, are crazy people. But the reality is that a life of sobriety, economic degrowth, austerity, those are the things that are needed to *save the world*. We need to accept to eat pasta, rice and vitamins for a long time unless civilization moves away entirely from fossil fuels so that it can properly adapt. If you refuse to accept that you must reduce your living standard, you are part of the problem, plain and simple. Politicians and companies will do exactly NOTHING if it angers consumers or if consumers keep giving those companies money. I'm often quite pessimistic about the ability of politicians to change course about co2 emissions. Consumers have too much powers.

throwaway-m3232 5y ago
Yes, I too think that GDP growth goal is not very compatible with sustainable production. But not to the point where you have less kinds of food. But the main problem I think is: there is no option to work less. Lets say you want to consume less, what will you do with your money, throw away? So I think that the workday should be reduced.

carapace 5y ago

> Of the hundreds of strategy plans I’ve analysed over the five years I’ve been studying energy, almost every single one ensures three things. First, that global citizens will still buy a lot of energy. Second, that control of energy resources will remain concentrated among a few industry players. Third, that energy-intensive companies and their shareholders will still make huge profits. And there it is: the big boys are addicted to oil profits and "the spice must flow". Last time I looked (a few years ago) the ten most profitable companies in the world were nine oil companies and Apple. (As I type this there's a guy outside driving a gas-powered noisy golf-cart thing with a tank and a gas-powered pump spraying plant poison on the lawn. It's a microcosm of what's wrong with us. Poisoning the air, land, and water, polluting sound itself, to maintain a wasteland of useless grass! What's more, you could make a lawn that maintained itself and fed some livestock, and not waste this guy on this stupid destructive job.) Anyhow... Here's a link to an old "brain dump" comment of mine in re: systems of agriculture. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827329 There's also a great case to be made for integrated alcohol fuel production on a local ecologically harmonious scale to power ICE vehicles (or hybrids) In many cases it makes way more sense that going directly for full electrification of cars, trucks, and busses, etc. (I know of http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 http://alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/277 but there are others.) As pointed out in TFA we have all the solutions and technology we really need already. What seems to be missing is the knowledge and will to employ them.