4 ms·

Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? I.e. phasing out fossil fuel while keeping our political system and economy reasonably intact? Or is it even i

Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? I.e. phasing out fossil fuel while keeping our political system and economy reasonably intact? Or is it even impossible if we stop emitting all CO2 tomorrow, because the warming is lagging behind? Last I heard, we could still physically achive 1.5 degrees, but we would have to switch completely to command economy immediately and take a big reduction in economic activity (a couple times larger than during the peak of COVID). Which I believe is still better than the alternative.

miltondts 4y ago
Depends on the model used. Some models say we already have 2C locked in: https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-2649767807.html https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-26...
zdragnar 4y ago
Economic depression in much of the world will see a return to deforestation as people are forced to use wood for heating, cooking and clearing land for more subsitence farming. I think the extent of the "command" portion of the command economy itself is unrealistic.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Command economy isn't going to help if they command it to "keep burning fossil fuels". Which is the main flaw that the current economic model has regarding climate change, paying people to do the thing we don't want them to do. > Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of ... https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? It would be with nuclear. But the nutters won round 1, which makes 2º virtually assured. > we would have to switch completely to command economy Command economies centralize political power. Broadly speaking, modern elites are insulated from everything but total societal collapse, which any country able to re-organise into a command economy is unlikely to face. One would expect a centralized political structure to give fewer shits about the environment, not more.
- hef19898 4y ago
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > try to pin climate chamge on envirenmentalists over nuclear power Unbuilt plants don't emit carbon. But without nuclear power there was no realistic path to curtailing emissions. Populations won't peacefully accept a reduction in their quality of life. Cutting use is and always was a pipe dream. When we needed to pivot, in the 80s and 90s, solar and batteries were not yet competitive. They now are. But that's thanks to fundamental breakthroughs in basic research. At this point, ramping up supply chains and industry will take too long for them to forestall 2º. (As was predictable ex ante.) Nuclear + gas would have gotten us to below 2º while easing the transition to wind + solar. Apart from nuclear for baseload at scale, we have coal. It's no shock that everyone who busted their nukes is now burning coal (or importing coal-shaken electrons). So no, I don't think we can pin blame on the anti-nuke greens. They didn't cause the problem. But they blocked nukes (and in America, gas pipelines) that presented the most realistic path to a future now no longer feasible. For fear of meltdowns (a local problem) and waste (a long-term problem) they put billions of lives at risk in a global and proximate disaster.
- captainmuon 4y ago
  I have to admit I minced words, I meant "if we magically had an utopian society tomorrow that would let us agree on a goal and work optimally towards that goal". I didn't want to open the can of worms whether an utopian or "good communist" society is possible, as I think many people here would say it is not - I think some fundamentally "better" society than the current world-wide system is possible and neccessary to have a chanche of dealing satisfyingly with climate change, but I don't know how that would look like of course. I agree political centralization would be a bad thing. For one, the peripheral will suffer the most from climate change. A society that calls itself utopian in my mind should be decentralized and allow political freedoms. But anyway, it is just a thought experiment - can any ideal society beat climate change in our lifetimes?
  - 4y ago

miltondts 4y ago

Depends on the model used. Some models say we already have 2C locked in: https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-2649767807.html https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-paris-agreement-26...

zdragnar 4y ago

Economic depression in much of the world will see a return to deforestation as people are forced to use wood for heating, cooking and clearing land for more subsitence farming. I think the extent of the "command" portion of the command economy itself is unrealistic.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Command economy isn't going to help if they command it to "keep burning fossil fuels". Which is the main flaw that the current economic model has regarding climate change, paying people to do the thing we don't want them to do. > Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of ... https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Is that under "realistic" economical assumptions? It would be with nuclear. But the nutters won round 1, which makes 2º virtually assured. > we would have to switch completely to command economy Command economies centralize political power. Broadly speaking, modern elites are insulated from everything but total societal collapse, which any country able to re-organise into a command economy is unlikely to face. One would expect a centralized political structure to give fewer shits about the environment, not more.

hef19898 4y ago
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > try to pin climate chamge on envirenmentalists over nuclear power Unbuilt plants don't emit carbon. But without nuclear power there was no realistic path to curtailing emissions. Populations won't peacefully accept a reduction in their quality of life. Cutting use is and always was a pipe dream. When we needed to pivot, in the 80s and 90s, solar and batteries were not yet competitive. They now are. But that's thanks to fundamental breakthroughs in basic research. At this point, ramping up supply chains and industry will take too long for them to forestall 2º. (As was predictable ex ante.) Nuclear + gas would have gotten us to below 2º while easing the transition to wind + solar. Apart from nuclear for baseload at scale, we have coal. It's no shock that everyone who busted their nukes is now burning coal (or importing coal-shaken electrons). So no, I don't think we can pin blame on the anti-nuke greens. They didn't cause the problem. But they blocked nukes (and in America, gas pipelines) that presented the most realistic path to a future now no longer feasible. For fear of meltdowns (a local problem) and waste (a long-term problem) they put billions of lives at risk in a global and proximate disaster.
captainmuon 4y ago
I have to admit I minced words, I meant "if we magically had an utopian society tomorrow that would let us agree on a goal and work optimally towards that goal". I didn't want to open the can of worms whether an utopian or "good communist" society is possible, as I think many people here would say it is not - I think some fundamentally "better" society than the current world-wide system is possible and neccessary to have a chanche of dealing satisfyingly with climate change, but I don't know how that would look like of course. I agree political centralization would be a bad thing. For one, the peripheral will suffer the most from climate change. A society that calls itself utopian in my mind should be decentralized and allow political freedoms. But anyway, it is just a thought experiment - can any ideal society beat climate change in our lifetimes?
- 4y ago