6 ms·

I understand people's concerns about this, but I think we need to get real here. This is what the world's yearly CO2 emissions look like: https://www.statista.

I understand people's concerns about this, but I think we need to get real here. This is what the world's yearly CO2 emissions look like: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... For us to not fry the planet, this graph needs to start going down. Fast. And it needs to go into negative territory. Now look at what's happening in the world today. Russia invades Ukraine. Gas and oil supplies get disrupted. Now inflation is running rampant, the people of the developed world are angry, and their leaders are desperately looking for fossil fuels to keep their economies moving. They're decommissioning nuclear plants and bringing coal plants back online. Biden wants to kill the gas tax to keep from getting swamped in November. Meanwhile, China and India are being flooded with cheap Russian oil. Does this sound like a world that is moving in the right direction to imminently push that emissions curve way down? Pie-in-the-sky moralizing about what humanity should do does not keep the planet from frying. Let's consider other options and accept some risk in exchange for the opportunity to avoid a looming, inevitable catastrophe.

sjtindell 4y ago
There is no centralized way to drive that change on the needed scale. Most humans don’t even view what we’re doing in civilization as shared project, let alone agree that this is required to protect it. I think they fundamentally lack the abstract thinking required. They won’t change until they feel the pain themselves. A poor fit for an abstract, not quite “here yet” problem. In the United States we can’t even get them to agree it’s a problem at all. But I think once we are collectively feeling the pain, solutions will be swift and surprising.
ncmncm 4y ago
Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. We already know what to do: build out renewables. Tax and otherwise cut burning fossil fuels. Renewables are already radically cheaper than any energy source ever devised, so the faster they are built out, the cheaper it gets. Anything else is a dangerous distraction. Any big enough distraction is disastrous.
- civilized 4y ago
  > Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. I see no evidence or reason to believe this at all, let alone with such extreme certitude. Shouldn't we try harder to have a realistic scientific assessment? > We already know what to do But it's not happening and it isn't going to happen. That means your plan doesn't work. That means that, however well-intentioned you are, your plan is do nothing and fry the planet.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It is happening, just not fast enough. Renewables are already cheaper than anything else. Building out more saves money. Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. Doing things to increase inertia makes things worse. Distracting people with pies in skies makes things worse. The planet fries, regardless, if CO2 is not brought down. Fooling around with anything that does not brings catastrophe nearer.
    - civilized 4y ago
      > Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. I don't buy the armchair social psychology here. People think they are much, much better at predicting how the population will react to things than they actually are. This led to a lot of terrible decisions during the pandemic, like telling people masks don't work on the baseless folk theory that wearing masks would cause people to take more risks. That theory, by the way, was very similar to the one you're advancing with such certitude. We are moving too slowly to avert potentially catastrophic climate change. The armchair theory that, somehow, not buying more time with geoengineering will somehow... I don't know, somehow cause people to be more focused and move faster?... is barely believable even as a folk theory, but on top of that, is very clearly not coming to pass. Look around at what's happening in the world. We need to get real.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Getting real means displacing CO2 production. Anything that fails to displace CO2 production is, at best, wankage. Anything that steals capital from displacing CO2 production is much worse.
cmarschner 4y ago
Guess what happens if they decide to build that fleet of space bubbles: Hooray we can just continue what we were doing. Let‘s burn more oil! Let‘s build bigger cars! Party!
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Yes. Even imagining it would work brings disaster closer.
- dorgo 4y ago
  Global warming is the primary, if not the only, reason for an expensive transition to renewables. If global warming is stopped/reversed then there is no reason to not to burn more oil, is there? I don't like it, but I won't argue against fossil fuels with abstract moral reasons.
  - civilized 4y ago
    There are plenty of other reasons to get off fossil fuels. Burning them is bad for human health, they cause economic and geopolitical instability, supplies are finite, they cause ocean acidity that destroys ocean ecosystems, excess CO2 causes less nutritious plants, etc. And renewables provide huge opportunities. Do you have any idea what it unlocks if you have unlimited clean energy? You could have massive, vibrant, beautiful cities and agriculture in the middle of the Sahara, and that's just the beginning.
    - jerojero 4y ago
      Moving to electric cars also hurts the environment a lot, maybe not in the countries that buy the cars but in the countries where the materials are mined. In reality we need structural policies that countries that spearhead pollution (like the USA) will never adopt. America is a car-centric country it is designed that way. Not only that but people expect their deliveries fast and also to be able to get what they want at all times... its a massive cultural shift. It seems very difficult to stop climate change, i would say impossible, because socially, politically and economically we have built machine that cant be stopped anymore.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
If we don't get nearly free electrical energy this isn't going to happen. Humans might as well accept it. We could save the planet with nuclear and renewables, but it won't happen, people are too stubborn.

sjtindell 4y ago

There is no centralized way to drive that change on the needed scale. Most humans don’t even view what we’re doing in civilization as shared project, let alone agree that this is required to protect it. I think they fundamentally lack the abstract thinking required. They won’t change until they feel the pain themselves. A poor fit for an abstract, not quite “here yet” problem. In the United States we can’t even get them to agree it’s a problem at all. But I think once we are collectively feeling the pain, solutions will be swift and surprising.

ncmncm 4y ago

Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. We already know what to do: build out renewables. Tax and otherwise cut burning fossil fuels. Renewables are already radically cheaper than any energy source ever devised, so the faster they are built out, the cheaper it gets. Anything else is a dangerous distraction. Any big enough distraction is disastrous.

civilized 4y ago
> Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. I see no evidence or reason to believe this at all, let alone with such extreme certitude. Shouldn't we try harder to have a realistic scientific assessment? > We already know what to do But it's not happening and it isn't going to happen. That means your plan doesn't work. That means that, however well-intentioned you are, your plan is do nothing and fry the planet.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It is happening, just not fast enough. Renewables are already cheaper than anything else. Building out more saves money. Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. Doing things to increase inertia makes things worse. Distracting people with pies in skies makes things worse. The planet fries, regardless, if CO2 is not brought down. Fooling around with anything that does not brings catastrophe nearer.
  - civilized 4y ago
    > Only social inertia slows it. Distraction adds to inertia. I don't buy the armchair social psychology here. People think they are much, much better at predicting how the population will react to things than they actually are. This led to a lot of terrible decisions during the pandemic, like telling people masks don't work on the baseless folk theory that wearing masks would cause people to take more risks. That theory, by the way, was very similar to the one you're advancing with such certitude. We are moving too slowly to avert potentially catastrophic climate change. The armchair theory that, somehow, not buying more time with geoengineering will somehow... I don't know, somehow cause people to be more focused and move faster?... is barely believable even as a folk theory, but on top of that, is very clearly not coming to pass. Look around at what's happening in the world. We need to get real.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Getting real means displacing CO2 production. Anything that fails to displace CO2 production is, at best, wankage. Anything that steals capital from displacing CO2 production is much worse.

cmarschner 4y ago

Guess what happens if they decide to build that fleet of space bubbles: Hooray we can just continue what we were doing. Let‘s burn more oil! Let‘s build bigger cars! Party!

ncmncm 4y ago
Yes. Even imagining it would work brings disaster closer.
dorgo 4y ago
Global warming is the primary, if not the only, reason for an expensive transition to renewables. If global warming is stopped/reversed then there is no reason to not to burn more oil, is there? I don't like it, but I won't argue against fossil fuels with abstract moral reasons.
- civilized 4y ago
  There are plenty of other reasons to get off fossil fuels. Burning them is bad for human health, they cause economic and geopolitical instability, supplies are finite, they cause ocean acidity that destroys ocean ecosystems, excess CO2 causes less nutritious plants, etc. And renewables provide huge opportunities. Do you have any idea what it unlocks if you have unlimited clean energy? You could have massive, vibrant, beautiful cities and agriculture in the middle of the Sahara, and that's just the beginning.
  - jerojero 4y ago
    Moving to electric cars also hurts the environment a lot, maybe not in the countries that buy the cars but in the countries where the materials are mined. In reality we need structural policies that countries that spearhead pollution (like the USA) will never adopt. America is a car-centric country it is designed that way. Not only that but people expect their deliveries fast and also to be able to get what they want at all times... its a massive cultural shift. It seems very difficult to stop climate change, i would say impossible, because socially, politically and economically we have built machine that cant be stopped anymore.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

If we don't get nearly free electrical energy this isn't going to happen. Humans might as well accept it. We could save the planet with nuclear and renewables, but it won't happen, people are too stubborn.