3 ms·

I disagree, some decarbonization pain is unnecessary and unhelpful, like the biofuels example I gave. What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying

I disagree, some decarbonization pain is unnecessary and unhelpful, like the biofuels example I gave. What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.

froggychairs 4y ago
Re: 4C It is true that technically a 4C world is survivable, but it will be an immensely hot world (land warms faster than oceans. So that 4C is the average of the two) and we won’t be able to sustain our current population. Vast swathes of the planet will be not fit for farming. Especially already arid regions today. So entertaining this world means entertaining the death and suffering of billions. We are long past the need for “balance”. We need to decarbonize yesterday and it is unfortunate that workers in fossil fuel industries might lose their job along the way. We could do what most climate policy think tanks suggest and provide compensated job training & a guaranteed position for fossil fuel workers transitioning to a cleaner energy field.
Jedd 4y ago
> What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees. Could you cite that one please? Every IPCC reference I can find just now is citing 1.5C as the maximum temperature jump we could expect to cope with and not be guaranteed to have a cascade of catastrophic events. The sentiment of 'we can survive 4C' feels weirdly phrased. Some people will survive, but it certainly won't be pretty for most people.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ I looked at A.3.1 and figure Figure SPM.2 to try and find cutoffs for cascading effects. As far as I can tell, the basis for 1.5C / 2.0C is local system collapse, like warm-water corals and arctic ecosystems. I can't find the reference for feedback mechanisms cutoffs right now, but for things like methane hydrate melting the limits are much higher. I'm not saying 2.0C warming is desirable, but the existential "hard limits" on the globe are much higher. I think this distinction is important, because it changes how we look at framing this as an emergency. If we are near existential limits, we can consider more harmful policies (e.g. population reduction, energy rationing), but if not we can plan our response longer-term.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    I've looked at SPM.2 - and the two charts in that graphic top out at 2.5C - which obviously sets the mental alarm bells ringing. I can't see anything that reflects your earlier claim of: > ... the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I'll correct my claim: "the last IPCC report I read suggested that the 1.5C limit is based on local tipping points. From other papers I have read, tipping points for global collapse are more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees." I couldn't find the 6-8C paper, but from memory the dictating factor was hydrate melting. I found this website which provides good summaries of the local tipping points. https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping-points-reassessment-explainer/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping... Do you know any references to global tipping points? When I first went looking for them it blew my mind that they were not easier to find in IPCC materials.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        In the meantime I found this page, which answers this question explicitly. https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/10/14/fact-check-will-2c-of-global-warming-trigger-rapid-runaway-feedbacks/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/10/14/fact-check-will...
      - Jedd 4y ago
        Agreed that it's hard to find definitive numbers, but given it's all projections and extrapolations, that's not hugely unexpected. As a sibling commenter suggested, 'the science' is not saying the world ends once we get past 1.5 -- and to be fair to myself, that's not what I intimated - my language was unnecessarily cumbersome, but I was trying to point out that the consensus is we have some confidence of not having a cascade up to about that figure. On that note, taking comfort from those higher thresholds & projections feels like hurtling past a 'Bridge Closed' sign at 100km/hr and taking instant but likely ephemeral comfort from the fact that sign wasn't so bad after all. If we hit 2-3 increase over the next few decades, even with moderate rises in climate-related casualties and costs, I expect there'll be even less appetite to address the problem. Anyway, the two articles you've linked just now say much the same message: " ... climate tipping point risks emerge above 1°C, become high around 2°C, and reach very high around 2.5-4°C. That means many tipping points are probably closer than we thought, and could start to be an issue even at today’s warming of 1.1-1.2°C." Arguing about where the global collapse is guaranteed to happen does feel a bit deck-chair-ish.
- rayiner 4y ago
  That’s very much not “the science.” 1.5C is the target. Bad stuff happens after that, but it’s not a “cascade of catastrophic events.” The expected GDP impact of a “do nothing” scenario is about 18% by 2050 (which will be 3.2C). We are definitely headed to a 3C world because developing nations have zero incentive to risk economic growth rates over the next 30 years on a 18% economic hit 30 years from now. They’ll still be better off using fossil fuels to grow as cheaply as possible.
  - amluto 4y ago
    If any of the sensible variants of a carbon tax or tariff were implemented, developing nations would have a strong incentive to reduce emissions: all of their exports would be taxed to penalize their emissions at the same rate as everyone else’s. In my opinion, having well meaning politicians and activists target specific climate-improving projects for funding and climate-harming projects for penalties or cancellation is the wrong approach: it’s expensive, it often chooses the wrong winners and losers, and it’s ineffectual. Putting monetary incentives in place that apply to everyone as equally as practical lets the free market choose winners and losers, and the free market is pretty good at that. (Also, the free market decouples the industries “responsible” for the problem from the often unrelated technologies that can help solve it. If a cement factory must pay $15/ton for its CO2 emissions, a startup selling carbon-free process heat that is only $5/ton more expensive than whatever a plant currently uses has a decent case to make a sale.)
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I'm in the same camp with wanting a better carbon tax but I've become skeptical that it is politically possible. For example, what happens if a bloc of countries refuse to pay their share? You can try and punish them with sanctions, but energy is so critical to national security that they are likely to be ignored. Then the only solution becomes war?
      - JamesBarney 4y ago
        How do they ignore sanctions?
yazaddaruvala 4y ago
lol, “don’t worry, I hear people survive just fine without their arms or legs. We can endure a little more frostbite just fine” This shouldn’t be the bar. The bar is avoiding a “global catastrophe” ie mass migration and the start of resource scarcity. All of which will occur significantly sooner than “global collapse”. It definitely requires more aggressive action early. Obviously keep using oil and gas so we don’t shut off anyone’s heat or food supply tho. Otherwise, everything else including higher costs (ie total shit for many many people) should be utilized to avoid catastrophe.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I think a better analogy for my view is: "the world has frostbite on its toes. If we make rash policy changes we can stop the frostbite now, but we need to cut our legs off. If we relax the constraint of stopping the frostbite immediately, it will continue to get worse in the short term but we will only lose a foot." This ignores the fact that we cannot stop climate change immediately even if we had perfect global coordination. It's not about redefining the bar, it's about avoiding rash policies like biofuel subsisies which cause large harm for minimal gain.

froggychairs 4y ago

Re: 4C It is true that technically a 4C world is survivable, but it will be an immensely hot world (land warms faster than oceans. So that 4C is the average of the two) and we won’t be able to sustain our current population. Vast swathes of the planet will be not fit for farming. Especially already arid regions today. So entertaining this world means entertaining the death and suffering of billions. We are long past the need for “balance”. We need to decarbonize yesterday and it is unfortunate that workers in fossil fuel industries might lose their job along the way. We could do what most climate policy think tanks suggest and provide compensated job training & a guaranteed position for fossil fuel workers transitioning to a cleaner energy field.

Jedd 4y ago

> What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees. Could you cite that one please? Every IPCC reference I can find just now is citing 1.5C as the maximum temperature jump we could expect to cope with and not be guaranteed to have a cascade of catastrophic events. The sentiment of 'we can survive 4C' feels weirdly phrased. Some people will survive, but it certainly won't be pretty for most people.

brutusborn 4y ago
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ I looked at A.3.1 and figure Figure SPM.2 to try and find cutoffs for cascading effects. As far as I can tell, the basis for 1.5C / 2.0C is local system collapse, like warm-water corals and arctic ecosystems. I can't find the reference for feedback mechanisms cutoffs right now, but for things like methane hydrate melting the limits are much higher. I'm not saying 2.0C warming is desirable, but the existential "hard limits" on the globe are much higher. I think this distinction is important, because it changes how we look at framing this as an emergency. If we are near existential limits, we can consider more harmful policies (e.g. population reduction, energy rationing), but if not we can plan our response longer-term.
- Jedd 4y ago
  I've looked at SPM.2 - and the two charts in that graphic top out at 2.5C - which obviously sets the mental alarm bells ringing. I can't see anything that reflects your earlier claim of: > ... the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I'll correct my claim: "the last IPCC report I read suggested that the 1.5C limit is based on local tipping points. From other papers I have read, tipping points for global collapse are more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees." I couldn't find the 6-8C paper, but from memory the dictating factor was hydrate melting. I found this website which provides good summaries of the local tipping points. https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping-points-reassessment-explainer/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping... Do you know any references to global tipping points? When I first went looking for them it blew my mind that they were not easier to find in IPCC materials.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      In the meantime I found this page, which answers this question explicitly. https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/10/14/fact-check-will-2c-of-global-warming-trigger-rapid-runaway-feedbacks/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2019/10/14/fact-check-will...
    - Jedd 4y ago
      Agreed that it's hard to find definitive numbers, but given it's all projections and extrapolations, that's not hugely unexpected. As a sibling commenter suggested, 'the science' is not saying the world ends once we get past 1.5 -- and to be fair to myself, that's not what I intimated - my language was unnecessarily cumbersome, but I was trying to point out that the consensus is we have some confidence of not having a cascade up to about that figure. On that note, taking comfort from those higher thresholds & projections feels like hurtling past a 'Bridge Closed' sign at 100km/hr and taking instant but likely ephemeral comfort from the fact that sign wasn't so bad after all. If we hit 2-3 increase over the next few decades, even with moderate rises in climate-related casualties and costs, I expect there'll be even less appetite to address the problem. Anyway, the two articles you've linked just now say much the same message: " ... climate tipping point risks emerge above 1°C, become high around 2°C, and reach very high around 2.5-4°C. That means many tipping points are probably closer than we thought, and could start to be an issue even at today’s warming of 1.1-1.2°C." Arguing about where the global collapse is guaranteed to happen does feel a bit deck-chair-ish.
rayiner 4y ago
That’s very much not “the science.” 1.5C is the target. Bad stuff happens after that, but it’s not a “cascade of catastrophic events.” The expected GDP impact of a “do nothing” scenario is about 18% by 2050 (which will be 3.2C). We are definitely headed to a 3C world because developing nations have zero incentive to risk economic growth rates over the next 30 years on a 18% economic hit 30 years from now. They’ll still be better off using fossil fuels to grow as cheaply as possible.
- amluto 4y ago
  If any of the sensible variants of a carbon tax or tariff were implemented, developing nations would have a strong incentive to reduce emissions: all of their exports would be taxed to penalize their emissions at the same rate as everyone else’s. In my opinion, having well meaning politicians and activists target specific climate-improving projects for funding and climate-harming projects for penalties or cancellation is the wrong approach: it’s expensive, it often chooses the wrong winners and losers, and it’s ineffectual. Putting monetary incentives in place that apply to everyone as equally as practical lets the free market choose winners and losers, and the free market is pretty good at that. (Also, the free market decouples the industries “responsible” for the problem from the often unrelated technologies that can help solve it. If a cement factory must pay $15/ton for its CO2 emissions, a startup selling carbon-free process heat that is only $5/ton more expensive than whatever a plant currently uses has a decent case to make a sale.)
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I'm in the same camp with wanting a better carbon tax but I've become skeptical that it is politically possible. For example, what happens if a bloc of countries refuse to pay their share? You can try and punish them with sanctions, but energy is so critical to national security that they are likely to be ignored. Then the only solution becomes war?
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      How do they ignore sanctions?

yazaddaruvala 4y ago

lol, “don’t worry, I hear people survive just fine without their arms or legs. We can endure a little more frostbite just fine” This shouldn’t be the bar. The bar is avoiding a “global catastrophe” ie mass migration and the start of resource scarcity. All of which will occur significantly sooner than “global collapse”. It definitely requires more aggressive action early. Obviously keep using oil and gas so we don’t shut off anyone’s heat or food supply tho. Otherwise, everything else including higher costs (ie total shit for many many people) should be utilized to avoid catastrophe.

brutusborn 4y ago
I think a better analogy for my view is: "the world has frostbite on its toes. If we make rash policy changes we can stop the frostbite now, but we need to cut our legs off. If we relax the constraint of stopping the frostbite immediately, it will continue to get worse in the short term but we will only lose a foot." This ignores the fact that we cannot stop climate change immediately even if we had perfect global coordination. It's not about redefining the bar, it's about avoiding rash policies like biofuel subsisies which cause large harm for minimal gain.