6 ms·

Yes. Quite easily, the materials are common. They require energy to process and ship, but that does not have to come from fossil fuels. I'm confident we'll get

by eloff 4y ago

Yes. Quite easily, the materials are common. They require energy to process and ship, but that does not have to come from fossil fuels. I'm confident we'll get there. There will be lots of mitigating the damage from climate change, because that train wreck is still in motion. But we will mostly decarbonize our economies by the end of this century.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> But we will mostly decarbonize our economies by the end of this century. Unfortunately unless we completely decarbonize by the middle of the century, we'll reach catastrophic levels of global warming (>3 degrees warming, likely leading to the polar ice caps melting and significant ocean level rises, especially at the equator).
- d883kd8 4y ago
  Once we have mostly decarbonized there are many techniques for capturing carbon if you have enough energy
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Perhaps, though we would need to do that long before the turn of the century. People just don't want to believe how little time there is left to stop catastrophic global warming.
- mlindner 4y ago
  All the trends I've read recently put us to going to no higher than 3 degrees of warming. The trends that put us toward over 3 degrees of warming were made around the time period of ~2010 when the trends were much worse than they turned out to be over the 2010s. 3 degrees is very bad, but it's quite survivable. We can of course always do better. But right now I'm quite happy with the direction things are going and the current trends but still push for trying to do more where we can.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Most economies are aiming for net zero by 2050. A goal, which it is now clear, that would have been absolutely trivial to meet while making a solid profit on the deal, if we'd just started earlier, like when the problem became widely known four decades ago. But we didn't. So we can probably still do it, and we can probably still come out richer, but some people are still trying to slow it down so they can profit from the short term chaos and impoverishing and risking our lives to do so.
  - eloff 4y ago
    The only possible solution four decades ago was nuclear, and even then it was only a partial solution, and which people oppose for illogical reasons. The story now is much more hopeful. I also hope nuclear can be a part of it, but I think battery advances are more likely to beat it to the starting line.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Climate change is not just about electricity production. There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear. Notable mentions: carbon fees, preventing deforestation, not subsidizing fossil fuels, not actively encouraging methane release from oilfields, more efficient cars, trains, insulation, heat pumps and solar water heaters but really the list is very, very long.
      - eloff 4y ago
        > Climate change is not just about electricity production. Agreed, but that was the part that could be addressed with nuclear. > There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear. I think we're in agreement, except for the word "solution". The things you mention are not solutions, but rather mitigations, bandaids, things that slow the pace of climate change. Which still would have been extremely useful to buy us more time to decarbonize.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    > Most economies are aiming for net zero by 2050. We emitted what the eartg can absorb (3Gteq) back in 1990. Since then, emissions trippled. Net zero is not enough, there is still a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the temperature will reach +3°C.
- eloff 4y ago
  I think three degrees of warming is unavoidable at this point. The massive coordination and effort it would take to avoid that seems like wishful thinking at best. I still hope I'm pleasantly surprised here, but I'm skeptical. It's going to come down to mitigating, and that might mean different things in different places. I think there will be some amount of geo-engineering to cool the poles and avoid some of the sea level rise and permafrost melting. There will also be some active carbon removal, but we also will not reach zero emissions either. That may mostly balance out, or reach "net zero". There will also likely be a slow migration away from low lying coastal areas, as well as seawall construction.
api 4y ago
The biggest risk to this is that efforts to decarbonize will lead to cost of living increases that disproportionately impact the poor and working class, leading to a populist uprising against these measures and an enthusiastic return to burning coal. (Coal remains the cheapest way to generate energy in most places.) We have already seen a little bit of this. It's only been a preview of what a more serious revolt would look like. It's important to realize that anything that increases energy costs is regressive. The wealthy can afford these cost increases and their lifestyle is barely impacted. For the poor and working class increases in these costs can be absolutely devastating. The upper classes can also afford EVs, solar panels, batteries, and can very often telework at least some of the time. Working classes are stuck with older technology that is more expensive to fuel and generally have to commute to work jobs in person with no option for remote work.
- imtringued 4y ago
  You do a CO2 dividend and the problem is solved. There is no easier problem than that. It is literally one person one vote. From my perspective people hate democracy and want people to be unequal by birth.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    How often do people with power make decisions for the greater good? Maybe I'm cynical, but the observer who said that the problem with political power is that the worst people will do anything they can to take it (as a result, good people won't have it)
- hedora 4y ago
  I don’t see how decarbonization will lead to a cost of living increase for the poor and working classes. Do you have any sources for this? Solar and batteries are still rapidly dropping in price. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry is engaging in rampant hostage taking (Putin) and price gouging (oil is under $100/barrel. Why is gasoline 2x what it was the first time oil was at this price?) If anything, I’d expect decentralized generation of renewable power to stabilize energy costs, eliminate wars for oil, and create well paying jobs for unskilled labor. As for EV affordability: All EVs in the US have a 10 year battery warranty (or lose subsidies), which should create gluts in the used car market moving forward. All of those things help the poor and working class: lower, more stable energy prices, better jobs, fewer wars to fight and cheaper used cars are each individually huge wins.

by eloff 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

> But we will mostly decarbonize our economies by the end of this century. Unfortunately unless we completely decarbonize by the middle of the century, we'll reach catastrophic levels of global warming (>3 degrees warming, likely leading to the polar ice caps melting and significant ocean level rises, especially at the equator).

d883kd8 4y ago
Once we have mostly decarbonized there are many techniques for capturing carbon if you have enough energy
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Perhaps, though we would need to do that long before the turn of the century. People just don't want to believe how little time there is left to stop catastrophic global warming.
mlindner 4y ago
All the trends I've read recently put us to going to no higher than 3 degrees of warming. The trends that put us toward over 3 degrees of warming were made around the time period of ~2010 when the trends were much worse than they turned out to be over the 2010s. 3 degrees is very bad, but it's quite survivable. We can of course always do better. But right now I'm quite happy with the direction things are going and the current trends but still push for trying to do more where we can.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Most economies are aiming for net zero by 2050. A goal, which it is now clear, that would have been absolutely trivial to meet while making a solid profit on the deal, if we'd just started earlier, like when the problem became widely known four decades ago. But we didn't. So we can probably still do it, and we can probably still come out richer, but some people are still trying to slow it down so they can profit from the short term chaos and impoverishing and risking our lives to do so.
- eloff 4y ago
  The only possible solution four decades ago was nuclear, and even then it was only a partial solution, and which people oppose for illogical reasons. The story now is much more hopeful. I also hope nuclear can be a part of it, but I think battery advances are more likely to beat it to the starting line.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Climate change is not just about electricity production. There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear. Notable mentions: carbon fees, preventing deforestation, not subsidizing fossil fuels, not actively encouraging methane release from oilfields, more efficient cars, trains, insulation, heat pumps and solar water heaters but really the list is very, very long.
    - eloff 4y ago
      > Climate change is not just about electricity production. Agreed, but that was the part that could be addressed with nuclear. > There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear. I think we're in agreement, except for the word "solution". The things you mention are not solutions, but rather mitigations, bandaids, things that slow the pace of climate change. Which still would have been extremely useful to buy us more time to decarbonize.
- eastbound 4y ago
  > Most economies are aiming for net zero by 2050. We emitted what the eartg can absorb (3Gteq) back in 1990. Since then, emissions trippled. Net zero is not enough, there is still a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the temperature will reach +3°C.
eloff 4y ago
I think three degrees of warming is unavoidable at this point. The massive coordination and effort it would take to avoid that seems like wishful thinking at best. I still hope I'm pleasantly surprised here, but I'm skeptical. It's going to come down to mitigating, and that might mean different things in different places. I think there will be some amount of geo-engineering to cool the poles and avoid some of the sea level rise and permafrost melting. There will also be some active carbon removal, but we also will not reach zero emissions either. That may mostly balance out, or reach "net zero". There will also likely be a slow migration away from low lying coastal areas, as well as seawall construction.

api 4y ago

The biggest risk to this is that efforts to decarbonize will lead to cost of living increases that disproportionately impact the poor and working class, leading to a populist uprising against these measures and an enthusiastic return to burning coal. (Coal remains the cheapest way to generate energy in most places.) We have already seen a little bit of this. It's only been a preview of what a more serious revolt would look like. It's important to realize that anything that increases energy costs is regressive. The wealthy can afford these cost increases and their lifestyle is barely impacted. For the poor and working class increases in these costs can be absolutely devastating. The upper classes can also afford EVs, solar panels, batteries, and can very often telework at least some of the time. Working classes are stuck with older technology that is more expensive to fuel and generally have to commute to work jobs in person with no option for remote work.

imtringued 4y ago
You do a CO2 dividend and the problem is solved. There is no easier problem than that. It is literally one person one vote. From my perspective people hate democracy and want people to be unequal by birth.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  How often do people with power make decisions for the greater good? Maybe I'm cynical, but the observer who said that the problem with political power is that the worst people will do anything they can to take it (as a result, good people won't have it)
hedora 4y ago
I don’t see how decarbonization will lead to a cost of living increase for the poor and working classes. Do you have any sources for this? Solar and batteries are still rapidly dropping in price. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry is engaging in rampant hostage taking (Putin) and price gouging (oil is under $100/barrel. Why is gasoline 2x what it was the first time oil was at this price?) If anything, I’d expect decentralized generation of renewable power to stabilize energy costs, eliminate wars for oil, and create well paying jobs for unskilled labor. As for EV affordability: All EVs in the US have a 10 year battery warranty (or lose subsidies), which should create gluts in the used car market moving forward. All of those things help the poor and working class: lower, more stable energy prices, better jobs, fewer wars to fight and cheaper used cars are each individually huge wins.