4 ms·

I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we

by tito 3y ago

I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it?

asu_thomas 3y ago
You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism.
- avitous 3y ago
  This right here. Either we collectively as a species take steps right away to correct course and achieve a sustainable now, or nature will do it for us; and the latter will occur cataclysmically. The former, too, except hopefully with less loss of life.
- x-complexity 3y ago
  > You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. 1) This makes the axiomatic leap that *everyone* knows that carbon offsets are fraudulent. There're definitely *some* that think so, but not all. Extraordinary claims of "All X is Y" require a proof that X leads to Y in *all* cases, not just *some*. 2) Another axiomatic leap made is that carbon offsets are inherently fraudulent, which again *some* may be, but not all. Similar comprehensive evidence is required to establish that *all* carbon offsets are fraudulent. 3) What is "painfully obvious" to someone may not be to anyone not steeped deep into the subject at hand. Even after being through the subject itself, there is no guarantee that an incrementalistic viewpoint would not be adopted as a result of seeing the faults within the system. > So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism. Socialism is reductively state capitalism with the added façade that democratic consensus & redistribution alone allows for the best outcome. It doesn't take into account desires that may go against the beliefs of the majority, whose desires can run counter to minorities within such a system (e.g LGBTQ+ rights & drug criminalization). Modern tolerances towards them happen to be lucky circumstances that shouldn't be taken for granted, as it could be just as likely for the opposite to have happened. Even in a dysfunctional state, niches are allowed to manifest within markets that can cater to them without the oversight of the State, for better or for worse. Denying the ability to create said pocket niches by enforcing the majority's views via the State invites levels of authoritarianism & Mother-Knows-Best attitudes that should be opposed from anyone seeking to preserve individual autonomy, which should include the minorities themselves. In cases of a non-State-based socialism, markets will inevitably be created as a consequence of having to trade with unknown/untrusted parties. The egalitarianistic "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can only work in scenarios where parties know who each other are, & can consequently apply adjustments to prevent excessive misuse from exploiting parties. Markets arise due to the alternative requiring much more effort to establish & maintain relationships with all parties on all possible tradable goods & services, whereas only a neutral area is required for the former.
- pxmpxm 3y ago
  Yeah China is definitely the paragon to follow when it comes to CO2...
  - asu_thomas 3y ago
    Did you think you were responding to something else? This is nonsensical as a response to my comment.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      I think he's pointing out that non-capitalist countries (China, former Soviet Union, North Korea...) have uniformly been environmental hellholes.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
Change zoning and a bunch of other regs to promote Netherlands style building and transport, rather than the ugly arse parking lot carbonized death culture we have now, invest heavily in developing cost effective nuclear (get that regulator out of the way of change), invest in fusion and reprocessing nuclear fuel research for medium to long term, start pumping out small nuclear plants from factories that can be put on the grid at strategic places to limit transmission build out need and limit losses of one of nuclear design we have now by going mass produced, not worry so much about our co2 outout for the next 3 decades it takes us to build all this, then start capping carbon out put hard
akomtu 3y ago
Any real solution would throw a wrench into the engine of our economy. The US is the biggest consumer, so the US gov could demand each product to be stamped with a manufacturer id, and charge the manufacturer for proper disposal of the thrown away items. Most of the manufacturers will leave the market and go bankrupt, because they produce junk, often intentionally. Think of all those washing machines with cheap plastic bearings that wear out precisely after the warranty expires. Whatever products are left will be rock solid and too expensive for most americans, who will join the manufacturers to end the "manufacturer id" law.
x-complexity 3y ago
> I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it? In the ideal sense: - Standardize carbon offset measurements: Proper comparisons can only be made if there's a starting point to work from. Standardizing how much X amount of carbon is offset per action (using only the lower bound to deliberately underestimate the impact of an action) would make it harder to lie about the impacts of said offsets. - Institute high carbon taxes on coal & coal only. Expect extreme friction from coal lobbies against this, & from environmentalists for not being extreme enough. Use incrementalism as an advantage to separate coal lobbyists from the other fossil fuel giants & reassure the others that they're excluded from this measure, & let them see the can be kicked, but not how far it has been kicked. - Further subsidize battery & renewable deployments. This MUST be made separate from the next point to reduce political friction. - Reduce subsidies for fossil fuel explorations & extraction. Lumping this & the above point together makes it much likelier that the lobbies will try stop both measures at once. Don't give them ammunition to do so. - Subsidize EVs & battery-based home energy storage tech even further. The rollout of cheap solar consequently leads to a worsening of the duck curve, just due to how solar energy is reliant on the sun. Smoothing out the bump from solar into a consistent line via battery tech would reduce stress on the grid for massive ramp-ups & alleviate the need for infra upgrades, which is subject to NIMBYism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve This is just off the top of my head, but the main theme is to chip away at the problem rather than finding the Killer. As tempting as it is to try & find the One Solution, such a breakthrough is heavily reliant on luck, whereas the other more relies on consistent effort than luck itself.

by tito 3y ago

I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it?

asu_thomas 3y ago

You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism.

avitous 3y ago
This right here. Either we collectively as a species take steps right away to correct course and achieve a sustainable now, or nature will do it for us; and the latter will occur cataclysmically. The former, too, except hopefully with less loss of life.
x-complexity 3y ago
> You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. 1) This makes the axiomatic leap that *everyone* knows that carbon offsets are fraudulent. There're definitely *some* that think so, but not all. Extraordinary claims of "All X is Y" require a proof that X leads to Y in *all* cases, not just *some*. 2) Another axiomatic leap made is that carbon offsets are inherently fraudulent, which again *some* may be, but not all. Similar comprehensive evidence is required to establish that *all* carbon offsets are fraudulent. 3) What is "painfully obvious" to someone may not be to anyone not steeped deep into the subject at hand. Even after being through the subject itself, there is no guarantee that an incrementalistic viewpoint would not be adopted as a result of seeing the faults within the system. > So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism. Socialism is reductively state capitalism with the added façade that democratic consensus & redistribution alone allows for the best outcome. It doesn't take into account desires that may go against the beliefs of the majority, whose desires can run counter to minorities within such a system (e.g LGBTQ+ rights & drug criminalization). Modern tolerances towards them happen to be lucky circumstances that shouldn't be taken for granted, as it could be just as likely for the opposite to have happened. Even in a dysfunctional state, niches are allowed to manifest within markets that can cater to them without the oversight of the State, for better or for worse. Denying the ability to create said pocket niches by enforcing the majority's views via the State invites levels of authoritarianism & Mother-Knows-Best attitudes that should be opposed from anyone seeking to preserve individual autonomy, which should include the minorities themselves. In cases of a non-State-based socialism, markets will inevitably be created as a consequence of having to trade with unknown/untrusted parties. The egalitarianistic "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can only work in scenarios where parties know who each other are, & can consequently apply adjustments to prevent excessive misuse from exploiting parties. Markets arise due to the alternative requiring much more effort to establish & maintain relationships with all parties on all possible tradable goods & services, whereas only a neutral area is required for the former.
pxmpxm 3y ago
Yeah China is definitely the paragon to follow when it comes to CO2...
- asu_thomas 3y ago
  Did you think you were responding to something else? This is nonsensical as a response to my comment.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    I think he's pointing out that non-capitalist countries (China, former Soviet Union, North Korea...) have uniformly been environmental hellholes.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

Change zoning and a bunch of other regs to promote Netherlands style building and transport, rather than the ugly arse parking lot carbonized death culture we have now, invest heavily in developing cost effective nuclear (get that regulator out of the way of change), invest in fusion and reprocessing nuclear fuel research for medium to long term, start pumping out small nuclear plants from factories that can be put on the grid at strategic places to limit transmission build out need and limit losses of one of nuclear design we have now by going mass produced, not worry so much about our co2 outout for the next 3 decades it takes us to build all this, then start capping carbon out put hard

akomtu 3y ago

Any real solution would throw a wrench into the engine of our economy. The US is the biggest consumer, so the US gov could demand each product to be stamped with a manufacturer id, and charge the manufacturer for proper disposal of the thrown away items. Most of the manufacturers will leave the market and go bankrupt, because they produce junk, often intentionally. Think of all those washing machines with cheap plastic bearings that wear out precisely after the warranty expires. Whatever products are left will be rock solid and too expensive for most americans, who will join the manufacturers to end the "manufacturer id" law.

x-complexity 3y ago

> I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it? In the ideal sense: - Standardize carbon offset measurements: Proper comparisons can only be made if there's a starting point to work from. Standardizing how much X amount of carbon is offset per action (using only the lower bound to deliberately underestimate the impact of an action) would make it harder to lie about the impacts of said offsets. - Institute high carbon taxes on coal & coal only. Expect extreme friction from coal lobbies against this, & from environmentalists for not being extreme enough. Use incrementalism as an advantage to separate coal lobbyists from the other fossil fuel giants & reassure the others that they're excluded from this measure, & let them see the can be kicked, but not how far it has been kicked. - Further subsidize battery & renewable deployments. This MUST be made separate from the next point to reduce political friction. - Reduce subsidies for fossil fuel explorations & extraction. Lumping this & the above point together makes it much likelier that the lobbies will try stop both measures at once. Don't give them ammunition to do so. - Subsidize EVs & battery-based home energy storage tech even further. The rollout of cheap solar consequently leads to a worsening of the duck curve, just due to how solar energy is reliant on the sun. Smoothing out the bump from solar into a consistent line via battery tech would reduce stress on the grid for massive ramp-ups & alleviate the need for infra upgrades, which is subject to NIMBYism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve This is just off the top of my head, but the main theme is to chip away at the problem rather than finding the Killer. As tempting as it is to try & find the One Solution, such a breakthrough is heavily reliant on luck, whereas the other more relies on consistent effort than luck itself.