4 ms·

> Take biofuel subsidies Yeah, yet another stupid "solution". https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-s

by myshpa 3y ago

> Take biofuel subsidies Yeah, yet another stupid "solution". https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-e... > sulphate emissions reductions You're right, the question is how big effect that had. I don't have the info. > 90% of sharks are gone https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts (sorry for the uppercase) FOR THE FIRST TIME SHARKS ARE GOING EXTINCT BECAUSE OF US SPECIES LIKE THRESHER, BULL AND HAMMERHEAD SHARKS HAVE LOST UP TO 80-99% OF THEIR POPULATIONS IN THE LAST TWO DECADES APPROX. 50 MILLION SHARKS ARE KILLED EVERY YEAR AS BYCATCH > Greenland is going to melt over 10,000 years then adaptation should be relatively easy. Melting in 50 years would be a different story https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/greenland-melted-recently-shows-high-risk-of-sea-level-rise-today/ https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/greenland-melted-recently-sh... Until recently, geologists believed that Greenland was a fortress of ice, mostly unmelted for millions of years Long-lost ice core reveals that much of Greenland was green 416,000 years ago It’s really the first bulletproof evidence that much of the Greenland ice sheet vanished when it got warm The CO2 levels during Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial were lower than today, but warming was still sufficient to generate major Greenland ice sheet melting. If we melt just portions of the Greenland ice sheet, the sea level rises dramatically, Four-hundred-thousand years ago there were no cities on the coast,” says Bierman, “and now there are cities on the coast." > Circulation stopping? Droughts? These are likely to be worse with a warmer world, but how much more likely/worse I can't answer that. Nobody probably can. Does it matter? > extinction rebellion ... worse environmental outcomes including worse emissions You're comparing extinction with worse emissions. I know almost nothing about extinction rebelion, but after this discussio I can understand their despair ;) > why is global trade threatened That's ChatGPT point ... probably disruptions in production etc. I don't have anything else to say. I'd talk about biodiversity loss etc., but I'll spare you. Thank you for the discussion.

brutusborn 3y ago
Thank you too. I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed: the extinction rebellion people are not offering a policy that stops warming or stops existential threats from warming. They are choosing simplicity over efficacy. It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction, I oppose them _because_ their politics won’t result in reducing risk of extinction. What does it matter if the risk of droughts/circulation changes is low? Because if the risk is low, then there is a greater chance that an early intervention will cause more harm that it saves. I gave you a few examples of such policies. Acting from ignorance almost always results in bad policy. You may interpret this as me being “too slow” but I have shown that being “too fast” results in negative outcomes that makes the problem harder to solve.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > rebellion people are not offering a policy The way I see it they're just "the end is nigh" people, screeming "wake up people, do something". Scientists are screaming too, in their own way, but nobody listens. > I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed Allow me to do the same ;) > It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction The problem of climate change and the overshoot is known for 50-70 years, and probably more. Just look how effective we've been in solving those problems, so far. We're still growing, polluting more than ever, destroying more than ever, on an exponential curve. Every ten years is much more worse than previous ten. There is no no sign that those trends are slowing. https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... You want guarantees and assurances and policies from environmental groups and scientists, which is imho unreasonable given how complex the problems and nature are. Exact numbers are irrelevant. It's all estimates anyway. But we don't have anything better to help us navigate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27... I understand we should stay away from bad policies, and we've surely seen enough of that from our politicians who are looking for fast and easy solutions to be able to placate their base that they're doing something, vote me again. But what's so bad e.g. on abolishing animal ag, which is not necessary (for human health), has alternatives, and is at the same time extremely inefficient, polluting, destructive and is behind most of the problems of the overshoot? What's so bad on deciding to not start new oil wells, save those subsidies (and we subsidize it a lot), and instead redirect it to renewables and research of new technologies? There are few things we could do almost instantly, like to remove/phase out subsidies for the most polluting sectors, and it would do a lot to stop to mitigate the negative effects of the overshoot (I hope you're not disputing that we're, in fact, in the overshoot). But instead we're subsidizing the biggest polluters forever more, still expanding production, curbing nothing (coal is still at 82%) ... there's nothing to suggest that we're on the right track. It's not that we're slowing too slow. We're still pressing the pedal to the floor, driving faster and faster to the ... scratch that ... down the cliff. For me ... waiting, delaying meaningful (not politically convenient) actions means choosing extinction. Absolutely. We couldn't live as we do without the support of the environment.

by myshpa 3y ago

brutusborn 3y ago

Thank you too. I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed: the extinction rebellion people are not offering a policy that stops warming or stops existential threats from warming. They are choosing simplicity over efficacy. It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction, I oppose them _because_ their politics won’t result in reducing risk of extinction. What does it matter if the risk of droughts/circulation changes is low? Because if the risk is low, then there is a greater chance that an early intervention will cause more harm that it saves. I gave you a few examples of such policies. Acting from ignorance almost always results in bad policy. You may interpret this as me being “too slow” but I have shown that being “too fast” results in negative outcomes that makes the problem harder to solve.

myshpa 3y ago
> rebellion people are not offering a policy The way I see it they're just "the end is nigh" people, screeming "wake up people, do something". Scientists are screaming too, in their own way, but nobody listens. > I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed Allow me to do the same ;) > It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction The problem of climate change and the overshoot is known for 50-70 years, and probably more. Just look how effective we've been in solving those problems, so far. We're still growing, polluting more than ever, destroying more than ever, on an exponential curve. Every ten years is much more worse than previous ten. There is no no sign that those trends are slowing. https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_accel-12graph-SE.png https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc... You want guarantees and assurances and policies from environmental groups and scientists, which is imho unreasonable given how complex the problems and nature are. Exact numbers are irrelevant. It's all estimates anyway. But we don't have anything better to help us navigate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27... I understand we should stay away from bad policies, and we've surely seen enough of that from our politicians who are looking for fast and easy solutions to be able to placate their base that they're doing something, vote me again. But what's so bad e.g. on abolishing animal ag, which is not necessary (for human health), has alternatives, and is at the same time extremely inefficient, polluting, destructive and is behind most of the problems of the overshoot? What's so bad on deciding to not start new oil wells, save those subsidies (and we subsidize it a lot), and instead redirect it to renewables and research of new technologies? There are few things we could do almost instantly, like to remove/phase out subsidies for the most polluting sectors, and it would do a lot to stop to mitigate the negative effects of the overshoot (I hope you're not disputing that we're, in fact, in the overshoot). But instead we're subsidizing the biggest polluters forever more, still expanding production, curbing nothing (coal is still at 82%) ... there's nothing to suggest that we're on the right track. It's not that we're slowing too slow. We're still pressing the pedal to the floor, driving faster and faster to the ... scratch that ... down the cliff. For me ... waiting, delaying meaningful (not politically convenient) actions means choosing extinction. Absolutely. We couldn't live as we do without the support of the environment.