3 ms·

I'd add that all our models include some form of carbon removal, which is still within the realm of fiction in any meaningful capacity. So not only do our chil

I'd add that all our models include some form of carbon removal, which is still within the realm of fiction in any meaningful capacity. So not only do our children inherit the mess, but our most optimistic scenarios all include our children being the ones to invent some sort of miracle tech. Meanwhile we're mostly sitting on our asses and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nomel 4y ago
> and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change. How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?
- input_sh 4y ago
  The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially. We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice. That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.
Tade0 4y ago
It's not all bad. The "business as usual" scenario was actually always unlikely and we're already far from realizing it, because it assumed, among other things, that China would increase its coal consumption much more than it actually did. No reason to celebrate because there's much to do, but it's not all doom and gloom.
underlipton 4y ago
"Us" is, of course, influence- and wealth-weighted. Plenty of people wanted many of the pandemic changes to stick. We liked seeing clear air and water, we liked inclusive work and communications policies that kept people off roads and consuming less. But there's too much money tied up in the status quo, on one hand, and too many loud extroverts who cannot bear any real shift away from their social advantage (and emotional safe space) on the other. It wasn't so much about convincing everyone, as it was about us getting dragged by the throat back to "normal".
scythe 4y ago
I don't think it makes a lot of sense that COVID would have caused some kind of climate revolution. If anything, it made in-person physical work — necessary to build sustainable infrastructure — more difficult. As it stands, global PV installed capacity has been growing by a pretty constant 20% per annum for the last five years, about half of which is in China and Europe but with similar exponential rates in other countries (Brazil in particular has doubled its installed capacity in less than three years). At that rate, depending on the capacity factor, it would produce the majority of the world's electricity in 15-20 years. Storage is behind, but faces a chicken-and-egg problem: if you don't have installed PV capacity, there's no demand to build storage. My point is: 20% YoY growth is fast by the standards of almost anything, let alone durable infrastructure. Rome wasn't built in a day. Part of the challenge is to make sure we keep it up.
- syntheweave 4y ago
  The COVID effect was mostly one of trend accelerations: more people using online services for everything, delivery for everything. It produced a shock that is currently changing our infrastructure patterns. We learned relatively quickly that although the streets cleared out, our energy use stayed roughly similar overall, and the supply shocks are tied to that story by shifting demand for goods and services in a relatively short period. Back-to-office is also part of that because one of the goods and services that could not move that quickly is real estate: individuals could move, but businesses had leases. And everyone looking at the commercial real estate market has been shaking their heads and seeing a negative trend: yes, companies did mobilize to get people back on their office commute, but the market is still sliding and cities are looking at the difficult prospect of converting commercial buildings to housing now.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nomel 4y ago

> and not even a global pandemic could convince us to make any sort of meaningful change. How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?

input_sh 4y ago
The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially. We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice. That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.

Tade0 4y ago

It's not all bad. The "business as usual" scenario was actually always unlikely and we're already far from realizing it, because it assumed, among other things, that China would increase its coal consumption much more than it actually did. No reason to celebrate because there's much to do, but it's not all doom and gloom.

underlipton 4y ago

"Us" is, of course, influence- and wealth-weighted. Plenty of people wanted many of the pandemic changes to stick. We liked seeing clear air and water, we liked inclusive work and communications policies that kept people off roads and consuming less. But there's too much money tied up in the status quo, on one hand, and too many loud extroverts who cannot bear any real shift away from their social advantage (and emotional safe space) on the other. It wasn't so much about convincing everyone, as it was about us getting dragged by the throat back to "normal".

scythe 4y ago

I don't think it makes a lot of sense that COVID would have caused some kind of climate revolution. If anything, it made in-person physical work — necessary to build sustainable infrastructure — more difficult. As it stands, global PV installed capacity has been growing by a pretty constant 20% per annum for the last five years, about half of which is in China and Europe but with similar exponential rates in other countries (Brazil in particular has doubled its installed capacity in less than three years). At that rate, depending on the capacity factor, it would produce the majority of the world's electricity in 15-20 years. Storage is behind, but faces a chicken-and-egg problem: if you don't have installed PV capacity, there's no demand to build storage. My point is: 20% YoY growth is fast by the standards of almost anything, let alone durable infrastructure. Rome wasn't built in a day. Part of the challenge is to make sure we keep it up.

syntheweave 4y ago
The COVID effect was mostly one of trend accelerations: more people using online services for everything, delivery for everything. It produced a shock that is currently changing our infrastructure patterns. We learned relatively quickly that although the streets cleared out, our energy use stayed roughly similar overall, and the supply shocks are tied to that story by shifting demand for goods and services in a relatively short period. Back-to-office is also part of that because one of the goods and services that could not move that quickly is real estate: individuals could move, but businesses had leases. And everyone looking at the commercial real estate market has been shaking their heads and seeing a negative trend: yes, companies did mobilize to get people back on their office commute, but the market is still sliding and cities are looking at the difficult prospect of converting commercial buildings to housing now.