3 ms·

> Global trends are more troublesome That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter if one country becomes completely carbon neutral. We're screwed anyways if oil

> Global trends are more troublesome That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter if one country becomes completely carbon neutral. We're screwed anyways if oil extraction continues unabated. It's easy to play around with different numbers to find ones that are favorable, but you can't hide the fact that fossil fuel extraction hasn't gone down. Unless it rapidly slows, and then stops, we're screwed, no matter which countries emit less carbon. And no matter which populations are more "efficient."

Retric 4y ago
It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. Look back at predictions from say 1990 or even 2000 and global CO2 emissions are much lower than predicted. That is progress. Climate change is cumulative so both reducing past emissions, reducing growth in emissions, and slowing down future emissions matter, but the sooner you start the less rapid the change needs to be. That’s especially true when for example old cars are exported to developing countries. Those hybrids people bought in 2010 are going to end up in South America, Africa, India etc.
- boplicity 4y ago
  > It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. That's where I'm quite skeptical. I'm very doubtful that overall fossil fuel extraction will decrease. This is a worldwide problem. The climate is affected by the global level of fossil fuel use, not by the amount released by individual countries. The extraction rate is still at or near record highs (worldwide). Will it slow down? Maybe? However, it seems unlikely, given the political and economic cost necessary to actually make a real dent. Governments just aren't taking the problem as seriously as they should.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I agree that it’s a worldwide problem. My point was simply individual countries slowing down is necessary even if it’s not sufficient to solve the problem. Where I see real progress globally is more efficient processes release less CO2 so there are economic incentives even if governments do nothing. India isn’t building solar farms to look green, they are building solar farms to save money. That means even more economies of scale and thus more solar farms. As these trends continue eventually fossil fuels lose economies of scale. That’s by far a more realistic path to success than every single government making wise long term policy decisions. Will that be fast enough is kind of an arbitrary metric, it’s not going to be as fast as possible but it will avert the worst possibilities.

Retric 4y ago

It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. Look back at predictions from say 1990 or even 2000 and global CO2 emissions are much lower than predicted. That is progress. Climate change is cumulative so both reducing past emissions, reducing growth in emissions, and slowing down future emissions matter, but the sooner you start the less rapid the change needs to be. That’s especially true when for example old cars are exported to developing countries. Those hybrids people bought in 2010 are going to end up in South America, Africa, India etc.

boplicity 4y ago
> It very much matters if the former #1 CO2 producer slows down. That's where I'm quite skeptical. I'm very doubtful that overall fossil fuel extraction will decrease. This is a worldwide problem. The climate is affected by the global level of fossil fuel use, not by the amount released by individual countries. The extraction rate is still at or near record highs (worldwide). Will it slow down? Maybe? However, it seems unlikely, given the political and economic cost necessary to actually make a real dent. Governments just aren't taking the problem as seriously as they should.
- Retric 4y ago
  I agree that it’s a worldwide problem. My point was simply individual countries slowing down is necessary even if it’s not sufficient to solve the problem. Where I see real progress globally is more efficient processes release less CO2 so there are economic incentives even if governments do nothing. India isn’t building solar farms to look green, they are building solar farms to save money. That means even more economies of scale and thus more solar farms. As these trends continue eventually fossil fuels lose economies of scale. That’s by far a more realistic path to success than every single government making wise long term policy decisions. Will that be fast enough is kind of an arbitrary metric, it’s not going to be as fast as possible but it will avert the worst possibilities.