6 ms·

There is only one solution to the climate apocalypse, and it's not popular: Fossil carbon extraction needs to be halted. Worldwide. Close the coal mines, shut

by dTal 3y ago

There is only one solution to the climate apocalypse, and it's not popular: Fossil carbon extraction needs to be halted. Worldwide. Close the coal mines, shut down the oil rigs. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's very, very simple: at the beginning of the Paleozoic era, atmospheric carbon was 20x higher than today, a level that the current biosphere cannot survive in. Gradually, over the next few hundred million years, that carbon was sequestered into the ground. We are now digging it back up and burning it, thus returning it to the atmosphere, within a span of decades. You can talk about LED lightbulbs and carbon credits till the cows come home, but the only thing that can halt this is preventing people from burning carbon that came from the ground - and the only way to stop that is to ban its extraction. "But what will we do for energy?" Lots of things. We have options. Personally I'm a fan of the magic green rocks that give energy forever. "But how will we power things that need high energy density / make plastics / lubricate my e-bike chain etc" - Oil. We can make it from anything carbon based. It's not even hard. We just have to stop digging it up and burning it.

knewter 3y ago
> I'm worried people might die. The only solution is to kill lots of people. You know that, when productivity goes down, people that can barely survive already will die. Right?
locustous 3y ago
We had experienced serious reductions in carbon utilization in the 2008 recession and COVID restrictions and there wasn't any kind of pull back signal from the temperature record that I can make out. Real global "experiments" that do not back up these extreme positions. If you really want to make changes it seems to me that the best place to put effort would be pro nuclear rather than cutting industry to the ground. Serious investment in thorium seems a good place to start.
systemvoltage 3y ago
This sounds like North Korean authoritarianism. Even the CCP would back away from this. Edit: responding to comment below about CFCs - Equating CFCs with all fossil fuels is an error of few orders of magnitude in scale. Edit: Those complaining I can't use reply button, it's because of throttling.
- dTal 3y ago
  Which part don't you agree with? Please be specific. I was careful to spell out every link in the chain. If you agree with the premise and logic, but simply dislike the conclusion, I really don't know what to tell you.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    Seems like you want to shutdown vast parts of society for climate goals with a top down control. That would lead to deaths of millions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine There is nothing specific to provide you with because you haven’t presented any specific points in the first place. You want to shutdown energy production from fossil fuels. That would be extremely immoral if you think about the consequences. Edit: Responding to the comment below, you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... Edit: Responding to dTal below - You can't just shut down fossil fuels without killing millions, not to mention complete loss of freedom, our country and everything it stands for. We both have same goals to get rid of fossil fuels, but I disagree with "plenty of alternatives exist". The only alternative we have is nuclear power. That's not looking good. The same environmentalists that want to solve climate change are also against nuclear power, and against any solution to climate change. They want you to not have kids – that's the quiet part. They're also hypocrites. There is no objectivity to how much decarbonization is acceptable, the end goal is to eliminate you. It's a cult.
    - arp242 3y ago
      > you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... I'll assume the figures in that article are true, but it's missing the point: people aren't talking about current deaths, but about future deaths. Climate change has the potential to globally upset weather patterns in such a way that compensating will be hard, and/or climate change will make entire areas unviable for habitation resulting in large migrations (which, historically, have been very disruptive). All of this is substantially different than "number of hurricane deaths of 1920 vs. 2021". Furthermore, there are also examples where intervention did prevent famine, for example rationing during the second world war in some countries, and I'm sure there are more examples. But there are no dramatic "The famine of 1897 that didn't happen because of effective government measures" Wikipedia pages. You can "prove" anything by linking to some example where things spectacularly failed, but that doesn't really "prove" anything, certainly not for the generic case of all "government interventions". And look, shutting off all fossil fuels from one day to the next would of course be sheer lunacy. But no one is really argueing for that, and what they are argueing for is replacing oil and other fossil fuels, ASAP.
peakcoal 3y ago
[flagged]
peakcoal 3y ago
[flagged]
pipes 3y ago
How will we make, cement, steel, plastic and fertilizer? If we do what you are suggesting, half the world population will starve to death.
- xracy 3y ago
  As opposed to right now, when the increased heat from climate change isn't killing anyone. Nope, we're all totally fine.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Where's your alternative, then?
- dTal 3y ago
  I literally address making plastic / oil derivatives in the last line of my comment. Given enough energy, and raw feedstock matter, we can make anything we need. Nuclear power gets us all the energy we need. Matter can simply be recycled in closed loops. The nitrogen for fertilizer we currently get from fossil fuels currently ends up in our sewage, and from there to places it shouldn't be like the ocean, causing huge problems like algae blooms. Recycle that, and you've solved another problem! It's all about closing the loops.
  - AstralStorm 3y ago
    Congratulations, we can build your solution in 25 years. Maybe. If there's still enough water to run any of it. And food. But there won't be. We really do not need much concrete or steel. What we need is bioplastics, biocomposites, wood, fused sand and a lot of farming practice changes. Some breakthrough in water desalination or cleanup. A lot of people will have to move. There's no way around it now.
- netsharc 3y ago
  Yeah, even Habeck, the Green Party guy who became Germany's Economic Minister, realised when Putin started the war, that the "simple, just go without Russian the gas" would've been catastrophic, their industry and economy depended so much on that gas, that mass unemployment would've destabilised the country, and maybe continent. Luckily he wasn't a dumb extremist, and despite his party affiliation he was working on solutions to keep the gas flowing.
Projectiboga 3y ago
Another problem is the sun is significantly brighter now than it was during the Paleozoic era.
- xracy 3y ago
  If this isn't straight BS (I don't know if it is because I don't see a source for it). It's dangerous "what-about-ism" Where it looks like you're trying to say that the problem isn't climate change, but that our sun has changed. As if we didn't live for thousands of years with the current sun setup. (I feel confident in saying that nothing major has changed about the sun in the last 2000 years because that's not the time scale these things happen on).
  - Projectiboga 3y ago
    I was referring to multi million years so comparisons to the last times we were above 420 PPM the sun wasn't as hot. I'm saying the two are combining is a truly horrifying way. The sun gets about 10% brighter and hotter every billion years, so slight but relentless. https://theconversation.com/the-sun-wont-die-for-5-billion-years-so-why-do-humans-have-only-1-billion-years-left-on-earth-37379 https://theconversation.com/the-sun-wont-die-for-5-billion-y...
    - xracy 3y ago
      Yeah, I stand by my original statement. This was not a meaningful 'add' to the conversation. The sun has been the same brightness for human history. It doesn't make it more difficult than the problem we had 50 years ago.
sirmike_ 3y ago
Well that is one imaginary perspective. In six years the world will still be turning and your side will yell the end will come in another 5 years. Please do not hide your tactics and by all means keep up the batshitcrazy loudness of your plans. The more you yell and scream and introduce more radical planning -- the more the average person will grow tired of them and end up shutting you all out. Ideologies aside we agree on nuclear energy.

by dTal 3y ago

knewter 3y ago

> I'm worried people might die. The only solution is to kill lots of people. You know that, when productivity goes down, people that can barely survive already will die. Right?

locustous 3y ago

We had experienced serious reductions in carbon utilization in the 2008 recession and COVID restrictions and there wasn't any kind of pull back signal from the temperature record that I can make out. Real global "experiments" that do not back up these extreme positions. If you really want to make changes it seems to me that the best place to put effort would be pro nuclear rather than cutting industry to the ground. Serious investment in thorium seems a good place to start.

systemvoltage 3y ago

This sounds like North Korean authoritarianism. Even the CCP would back away from this. Edit: responding to comment below about CFCs - Equating CFCs with all fossil fuels is an error of few orders of magnitude in scale. Edit: Those complaining I can't use reply button, it's because of throttling.

dTal 3y ago
Which part don't you agree with? Please be specific. I was careful to spell out every link in the chain. If you agree with the premise and logic, but simply dislike the conclusion, I really don't know what to tell you.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  Seems like you want to shutdown vast parts of society for climate goals with a top down control. That would lead to deaths of millions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine There is nothing specific to provide you with because you haven’t presented any specific points in the first place. You want to shutdown energy production from fossil fuels. That would be extremely immoral if you think about the consequences. Edit: Responding to the comment below, you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... Edit: Responding to dTal below - You can't just shut down fossil fuels without killing millions, not to mention complete loss of freedom, our country and everything it stands for. We both have same goals to get rid of fossil fuels, but I disagree with "plenty of alternatives exist". The only alternative we have is nuclear power. That's not looking good. The same environmentalists that want to solve climate change are also against nuclear power, and against any solution to climate change. They want you to not have kids – that's the quiet part. They're also hypocrites. There is no objectivity to how much decarbonization is acceptable, the end goal is to eliminate you. It's a cult.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... I'll assume the figures in that article are true, but it's missing the point: people aren't talking about current deaths, but about future deaths. Climate change has the potential to globally upset weather patterns in such a way that compensating will be hard, and/or climate change will make entire areas unviable for habitation resulting in large migrations (which, historically, have been very disruptive). All of this is substantially different than "number of hurricane deaths of 1920 vs. 2021". Furthermore, there are also examples where intervention did prevent famine, for example rationing during the second world war in some countries, and I'm sure there are more examples. But there are no dramatic "The famine of 1897 that didn't happen because of effective government measures" Wikipedia pages. You can "prove" anything by linking to some example where things spectacularly failed, but that doesn't really "prove" anything, certainly not for the generic case of all "government interventions". And look, shutting off all fossil fuels from one day to the next would of course be sheer lunacy. But no one is really argueing for that, and what they are argueing for is replacing oil and other fossil fuels, ASAP.

peakcoal 3y ago

[flagged]

peakcoal 3y ago

[flagged]

pipes 3y ago

How will we make, cement, steel, plastic and fertilizer? If we do what you are suggesting, half the world population will starve to death.

xracy 3y ago
As opposed to right now, when the increased heat from climate change isn't killing anyone. Nope, we're all totally fine.
Paul-Craft 3y ago
Where's your alternative, then?
dTal 3y ago
I literally address making plastic / oil derivatives in the last line of my comment. Given enough energy, and raw feedstock matter, we can make anything we need. Nuclear power gets us all the energy we need. Matter can simply be recycled in closed loops. The nitrogen for fertilizer we currently get from fossil fuels currently ends up in our sewage, and from there to places it shouldn't be like the ocean, causing huge problems like algae blooms. Recycle that, and you've solved another problem! It's all about closing the loops.
- AstralStorm 3y ago
  Congratulations, we can build your solution in 25 years. Maybe. If there's still enough water to run any of it. And food. But there won't be. We really do not need much concrete or steel. What we need is bioplastics, biocomposites, wood, fused sand and a lot of farming practice changes. Some breakthrough in water desalination or cleanup. A lot of people will have to move. There's no way around it now.
netsharc 3y ago
Yeah, even Habeck, the Green Party guy who became Germany's Economic Minister, realised when Putin started the war, that the "simple, just go without Russian the gas" would've been catastrophic, their industry and economy depended so much on that gas, that mass unemployment would've destabilised the country, and maybe continent. Luckily he wasn't a dumb extremist, and despite his party affiliation he was working on solutions to keep the gas flowing.

Projectiboga 3y ago

Another problem is the sun is significantly brighter now than it was during the Paleozoic era.

xracy 3y ago
If this isn't straight BS (I don't know if it is because I don't see a source for it). It's dangerous "what-about-ism" Where it looks like you're trying to say that the problem isn't climate change, but that our sun has changed. As if we didn't live for thousands of years with the current sun setup. (I feel confident in saying that nothing major has changed about the sun in the last 2000 years because that's not the time scale these things happen on).
- Projectiboga 3y ago
  I was referring to multi million years so comparisons to the last times we were above 420 PPM the sun wasn't as hot. I'm saying the two are combining is a truly horrifying way. The sun gets about 10% brighter and hotter every billion years, so slight but relentless. https://theconversation.com/the-sun-wont-die-for-5-billion-years-so-why-do-humans-have-only-1-billion-years-left-on-earth-37379 https://theconversation.com/the-sun-wont-die-for-5-billion-y...
  - xracy 3y ago
    Yeah, I stand by my original statement. This was not a meaningful 'add' to the conversation. The sun has been the same brightness for human history. It doesn't make it more difficult than the problem we had 50 years ago.

sirmike_ 3y ago

Well that is one imaginary perspective. In six years the world will still be turning and your side will yell the end will come in another 5 years. Please do not hide your tactics and by all means keep up the batshitcrazy loudness of your plans. The more you yell and scream and introduce more radical planning -- the more the average person will grow tired of them and end up shutting you all out. Ideologies aside we agree on nuclear energy.