5 ms·

>we have all the tools we need to 'avoid it' (and have had them for some time), but it will take at least one, if not two, orders of magnitude more effort than

>we have all the tools we need to 'avoid it' (and have had them for some time), but it will take at least one, if not two, orders of magnitude more effort than any previous project with a completely global scope. Right, which is why it's simply not going to happen. It would take far too much effort, and also far too much cooperation between different nations that all intensely hate each other. On top of that, large parts of the the global population 1) don't believe the problem exists in the first place, 2) doesn't think it's technically possible to do anything about (i.e. they think it's mostly natural, even if it's real), or 3) think they shouldn't have to change their actions at all because they're mad that the rich countries got to burn lots of oil and then stick all humanity with the problems from it. The problem is beyond fixing. Even if, for instance, Germany manages to become 100% carbon-neutral, that isn't going to help much when the USA and China and Russia and India are spewing out so much carbon and refuse to stop. The thing to do at this point is to understand and predict well what's coming, so that we can take measures to mitigate the effects at local scales.

sebmellen 3y ago
I will continue to shill https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com
- slushh 3y ago
  Does the page take over scrolling? Not a good sign for somebody who wants to take control over our climate. *edit: The downvotes are fair for the level of snark. Still, as I cannot judge the validity of the approach, shouldn't I be skeptical when there is an inclination to change more than necessary? At least for me, the page keeps scrolling for a short moment, unlike other pages like HN. It's tasteful, but unnecessary.
  - rat9988 3y ago
    Shouldn't I be skeptical when there is an inclination to change more than necessary? No you should not. This is not a website where they present a new web framework that respects your browser.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  What are the odds that we end up just making things worse. I live in Australia and think of the cane toads being introduced to eat the cane beetle. In this can I worry we overdo it and cause an ice age.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    My worry is that by applying quick fix bandaids we avoid tackling the real problem and are not forced to decarbonize. Then we're stuck with more and more fixes in the future and who knows what side effects it'll have.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      I don’t think anyone is avoiding the problem, I think people are just unsure about what the best solution is. We could have replaced coal with nuclear in the 70s but that was ‘too risky’ for the average environmentalist, so we are putting out bets on developing renewables faster than climate changes occur. We merely trade one risk for another, there is never a silver bullet. Most climate skeptics are happy to take the risk that the models aren’t accurate or the scientists doom predictions don’t occur. I think there’s a chance the models are wrong but I’d prefer to take the pain/risk of trying to reduce the potential for a problem before it’s too late.
      - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        > I don’t think anyone is avoiding the problem Oil and gas companies would probably come to mind. If we apply quick fixes, you can be sure O&G will be lobbying hard not to do anything to restrict their operations.
        brutusborn 3y ago
        I wouldn’t call that avoiding the problem. No one expects oil and gas companies to shut down until we have something to replace them. Renewables haven’t been very effective yet (just look at Germany) so we still need oil and gas companies to function (eg just stop oil all using iPhones and Macs). I’m guessing you still use products made from fossil fuels: would you say that you are avoiding the problem? Or would you say you a just being pragmatic? It’s easy to point fingers but unless you are living in a hut in the woods you will still be contributing to GHG.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  Can I ask why? I don't think there is much scientific evidence it is safe to do and the last people I would want engaging in geo engineering would be a VC funded startup.
epistasis 3y ago
The cheapest energy systems are the carbon free ones. Maintaining a fossil fuel based energy system will be more expensive and costly than switching to a carbon free economy. Every single delay in the transition is wasted money, a transfer to fossil fuel interests at the expense of all the rest of humanity. And once you add in the environmental externalities on top of just the pure cost, it becomes even more egregious. Saying that it's impossible is as ridiculous as saying it's impossible for us to have built the huge energy system we have today. Rebuilding it all will take just a few percentage of global GDP, less than would be spent on fossil fuels, and create the infrastructure for cheaper more abundant energy, laying the groundwork for more technological advancement. Instead of repeating tired narratives of the past, it's time to start thinking critically and apply even the tiniest amount of skepticism to the received wisdom of entrenched interests. We only hurt ourselves when we wear the rose-colored glasses that let us live with the out-dated "truths" of the 20th century. It's time for us to advance technologically.
- logifail 3y ago
  > The cheapest energy systems are the carbon free ones I would really like to believe this claim to be true. Unfortunately my recent real-world data points gathered as a consumer while doing such mundane stuff as heating and powering my home and fueling my ageing vehicles leave me wondering what I'm missing. I'd love to drive an EV. I'd love to have PV at home. A geothermal heat pump would be nice, too. I just haven't got enough spare money to make any of these choices until they get considerably cheaper.
  - danans 3y ago
    I think when they say "systems" they are referring to large grid scale energy generation systems, not what you can install at home, which is necessarily more expensive per unit energy than at grid scale.
  - dalyons 3y ago
    Ok fair, but that has very little to do with utility sized energy production which I assume the OP is talking about.
aeturnum 3y ago
> It would take far too much effort, and also far too much cooperation between different nations that all intensely hate each other. I share your pessimistic assessment and I would frame it differently. The thing that strikes me, above all, is that this is the first project that really requires cooperation on this scale. Basically everything before was possible with smaller groups following their own incentives (basically bog standard capitalism). The cost of cooperation was not worth the returns. This is different - we need to learn to cooperate on a previously unheard of scale - and (as you note) we need to learn to cooperate in a way where we don't totally trust others. I just saw Oppenheimer so, to draw a historic analogy, it's like you have to run the Manhatten project...but also actively share work with Russian and Nazi scientists to finish the project earlier than US science could alone. It's on an entirely different level of difficulty that we have never really needed to attempt previously. For instance - are oil & gas companies being disruptive and acting in bad faith? Yes. Do we need them to stop? Absolutely. Probably the easiest way is to reward their bad faith action if they will really start cooperating. At this stage we need them to be winners. Justice is a luxury for people who are in less dire conditions. > Even if, for instance, Germany manages to become 100% carbon-neutral, that isn't going to help much I think you're totally wrong on this and I encourage you to look into the science on it. We can make the planet as hot as we want. Every bit of warming emission hurts. I'd also argue that, in the same way that California standards change things across the US (because they are so big) the developed world truly abandoning carbon would dramatically impact the rest of the world.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >I think you're totally wrong on this and I encourage you to look into the science on it. We can make the planet as hot as we want. Every bit of warming emission hurts. It does, but it's not a linear relationship. Everything I've read talks about a "tipping point" and exponential curve: basically, once you get past a certain point, it starts snowballing. Critical ocean currents stop working the normal way, etc. Germany becoming carbon neutral just isn't enough to avoid this. Germany isn't that big an emitter when compared to everyone else. >I'd also argue that, in the same way that California standards change things across the US (because they are so big) the developed world truly abandoning carbon would dramatically impact the rest of the world. Germany is not "the developed world". It's not even much of a leader of it. The US is, and the US is NOT going to become carbon-neutral (or even close to it) in our lifetimes. And even if they did, somehow, there's still China.

sebmellen 3y ago

I will continue to shill https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com

slushh 3y ago
Does the page take over scrolling? Not a good sign for somebody who wants to take control over our climate. *edit: The downvotes are fair for the level of snark. Still, as I cannot judge the validity of the approach, shouldn't I be skeptical when there is an inclination to change more than necessary? At least for me, the page keeps scrolling for a short moment, unlike other pages like HN. It's tasteful, but unnecessary.
- rat9988 3y ago
  Shouldn't I be skeptical when there is an inclination to change more than necessary? No you should not. This is not a website where they present a new web framework that respects your browser.
brutusborn 3y ago
What are the odds that we end up just making things worse. I live in Australia and think of the cane toads being introduced to eat the cane beetle. In this can I worry we overdo it and cause an ice age.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  My worry is that by applying quick fix bandaids we avoid tackling the real problem and are not forced to decarbonize. Then we're stuck with more and more fixes in the future and who knows what side effects it'll have.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I don’t think anyone is avoiding the problem, I think people are just unsure about what the best solution is. We could have replaced coal with nuclear in the 70s but that was ‘too risky’ for the average environmentalist, so we are putting out bets on developing renewables faster than climate changes occur. We merely trade one risk for another, there is never a silver bullet. Most climate skeptics are happy to take the risk that the models aren’t accurate or the scientists doom predictions don’t occur. I think there’s a chance the models are wrong but I’d prefer to take the pain/risk of trying to reduce the potential for a problem before it’s too late.
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      > I don’t think anyone is avoiding the problem Oil and gas companies would probably come to mind. If we apply quick fixes, you can be sure O&G will be lobbying hard not to do anything to restrict their operations.
      - brutusborn 3y ago
        I wouldn’t call that avoiding the problem. No one expects oil and gas companies to shut down until we have something to replace them. Renewables haven’t been very effective yet (just look at Germany) so we still need oil and gas companies to function (eg just stop oil all using iPhones and Macs). I’m guessing you still use products made from fossil fuels: would you say that you are avoiding the problem? Or would you say you a just being pragmatic? It’s easy to point fingers but unless you are living in a hut in the woods you will still be contributing to GHG.
jabradoodle 3y ago
Can I ask why? I don't think there is much scientific evidence it is safe to do and the last people I would want engaging in geo engineering would be a VC funded startup.

epistasis 3y ago

The cheapest energy systems are the carbon free ones. Maintaining a fossil fuel based energy system will be more expensive and costly than switching to a carbon free economy. Every single delay in the transition is wasted money, a transfer to fossil fuel interests at the expense of all the rest of humanity. And once you add in the environmental externalities on top of just the pure cost, it becomes even more egregious. Saying that it's impossible is as ridiculous as saying it's impossible for us to have built the huge energy system we have today. Rebuilding it all will take just a few percentage of global GDP, less than would be spent on fossil fuels, and create the infrastructure for cheaper more abundant energy, laying the groundwork for more technological advancement. Instead of repeating tired narratives of the past, it's time to start thinking critically and apply even the tiniest amount of skepticism to the received wisdom of entrenched interests. We only hurt ourselves when we wear the rose-colored glasses that let us live with the out-dated "truths" of the 20th century. It's time for us to advance technologically.

logifail 3y ago
> The cheapest energy systems are the carbon free ones I would really like to believe this claim to be true. Unfortunately my recent real-world data points gathered as a consumer while doing such mundane stuff as heating and powering my home and fueling my ageing vehicles leave me wondering what I'm missing. I'd love to drive an EV. I'd love to have PV at home. A geothermal heat pump would be nice, too. I just haven't got enough spare money to make any of these choices until they get considerably cheaper.
- danans 3y ago
  I think when they say "systems" they are referring to large grid scale energy generation systems, not what you can install at home, which is necessarily more expensive per unit energy than at grid scale.
- dalyons 3y ago
  Ok fair, but that has very little to do with utility sized energy production which I assume the OP is talking about.

aeturnum 3y ago

> It would take far too much effort, and also far too much cooperation between different nations that all intensely hate each other. I share your pessimistic assessment and I would frame it differently. The thing that strikes me, above all, is that this is the first project that really requires cooperation on this scale. Basically everything before was possible with smaller groups following their own incentives (basically bog standard capitalism). The cost of cooperation was not worth the returns. This is different - we need to learn to cooperate on a previously unheard of scale - and (as you note) we need to learn to cooperate in a way where we don't totally trust others. I just saw Oppenheimer so, to draw a historic analogy, it's like you have to run the Manhatten project...but also actively share work with Russian and Nazi scientists to finish the project earlier than US science could alone. It's on an entirely different level of difficulty that we have never really needed to attempt previously. For instance - are oil & gas companies being disruptive and acting in bad faith? Yes. Do we need them to stop? Absolutely. Probably the easiest way is to reward their bad faith action if they will really start cooperating. At this stage we need them to be winners. Justice is a luxury for people who are in less dire conditions. > Even if, for instance, Germany manages to become 100% carbon-neutral, that isn't going to help much I think you're totally wrong on this and I encourage you to look into the science on it. We can make the planet as hot as we want. Every bit of warming emission hurts. I'd also argue that, in the same way that California standards change things across the US (because they are so big) the developed world truly abandoning carbon would dramatically impact the rest of the world.

midoridensha 3y ago
>I think you're totally wrong on this and I encourage you to look into the science on it. We can make the planet as hot as we want. Every bit of warming emission hurts. It does, but it's not a linear relationship. Everything I've read talks about a "tipping point" and exponential curve: basically, once you get past a certain point, it starts snowballing. Critical ocean currents stop working the normal way, etc. Germany becoming carbon neutral just isn't enough to avoid this. Germany isn't that big an emitter when compared to everyone else. >I'd also argue that, in the same way that California standards change things across the US (because they are so big) the developed world truly abandoning carbon would dramatically impact the rest of the world. Germany is not "the developed world". It's not even much of a leader of it. The US is, and the US is NOT going to become carbon-neutral (or even close to it) in our lifetimes. And even if they did, somehow, there's still China.