8 ms·

Impressive how actionable that report back in 1983 was. But unfortunately the political climate is probably harder to change than the real climate, otherwise th

Impressive how actionable that report back in 1983 was. But unfortunately the political climate is probably harder to change than the real climate, otherwise there would have been more progress in the past 40 years.

lazide 3y ago
The political climate is mostly about what people want. Dealing with this issue will require major changes in the economy (even now fossil fuel based), and national security/foreign policy (fossil fuel based now and for the foreseeable future). Both of these no one has any plans yet which wouldn’t require major changes in the way people live and the way the US interacts with the world which would put them at a major disadvantage with everyone else, and take a hit in creature comforts, prestige, and power. At least based on the options currently available to us. And this isn’t a problem caused just by the US. So even if the US did this, the rest of the world would keep on trucking and making the issue worse. Unless the US went to war or something? Which would definitely cause massive burning of fossil fuels (and nukes) which would definitely make everything worse, and kill a whole lot of people rather directly. And seems rather evil too. Until the problem is causing real, unavoidable, unambiguous issues for everyone, of course it’s going to be denied. And even then…. If you’re ever tried to take the booze from an alcoholic, it’s obvious what’s going to happen. And we’re all drunk on cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels, and have been for a very, very long time. Don’t look up!
- mustafa_pasi 3y ago
  We posted almost the same comment. I do disagree with one point. The US is the country with the most global power and is instrumental in driving global change so I really disagree that they do not hold a huge responsibility. I mean, Germany is trying to lead by example, but their attempt is pathetic. Nobody is going to care what Germany does and they do not have the economic and political power to enforce global change. But the US does. I am not saying the US can do it alone, but it has to show both initiative and willingness.
  - Robotbeat 3y ago
    Not only that, but people see Germany as being fundamentally unserious about climate change when they retire nuclear and keep burning insane amounts of destructive brown coal. I don’t think the electricity mix is even significantly cleaner than the US’s EDIT: confirmed, the US had 365grams of CO2 per kWh (805lbs per MWh) but Germany had 385g per kWh in 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity-power-sector-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247991/annual-power-sector-carbon-intensity-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247991/annual-power-sec...
    - mustafa_pasi 3y ago
      People see Germany as a foolish naive nation which is currently hurting itself economically and making a clown of itself. It is having the opposite of the desired effect. Other countries will be more hesitant to transition to green technologies when they see Germany suffering.
      - olddustytrail 3y ago
        Really? Which countries would those be? All the European countries that have far higher renewable use than Germany? No one considers Germany a leader in renewables. It's just a straw man for the nuclear fanboys.
        mustafa_pasi 3y ago
        Germany sees itself as a leader in the green transition even if this is not factually correct.
        olddustytrail 3y ago
        Oh, well you don't have to worry about other countries being put off by Germany's decisions, because no one else does. Good news, eh!
      - 3y ago
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > Both of these no one has any plans yet which wouldn’t require major changes in the way people live Eh... I mean, nearly every country in the EU has seen reducing greenhouse gas emissions for years (even _with_ replacement of some gas generation with higher-intensity coal generation due to the invasion of Ukraine), on the foot of building retrofitting, increased renewable generation, etc. The US and China have also been investing significantly in renewable generation (though, I believe, at least in the US's case, building retrofitting has yet to start on a large scale). US emissions are broadly declining and have been for a while, Chinese emissions have almost flatlined, though are still inching up. People are doing stuff. > the way the US interacts with the world which would put them at a major disadvantage with everyone else Huh? I would think that the US is actually in a rather good position here, certainly relative to Europe and probably to China. The US is very physically big, so lots of space for renewables, and is more self-sufficient on lower-carbon-intensity fossil fuel (ie gas, likely realistically essential as a transition fuel) than the others. It would also likely find lower-intensity agriculture easier to cope with, if it comes to that. > And this isn’t a problem caused just by the US. So even if the US did this, the rest of the world would keep on trucking and making the issue worse. China is if anything currently outpacing the US on renewable and other low-intensity (nuclear) generation capacity. This feels like a comment written 30 years ago, back when no-one was doing anything much. Today, the big three are doing some stuff, with plans for more. > Until the problem is causing real, unavoidable, unambiguous issues for everyone, of course it’s going to be denied. The denial is interesting. In the developed world, it's only a significant factor in the US, Canada, and Australia, all of which have large fossil fuel industries, and in all of which it has been highly politicised. (Similar pattern in the developing world; the big denial cheerleader there being Indonesia). In most countries, it is fairly broadly accepted to be happening, and to be at least largely humanity's fault. Even in countries where denial is a significant political issue, it is generally on the decline (as you'd expect; the percentage of the electorate who'll die off anyway before we see really major impact is declining).
  - lazide 3y ago
    Ho man. To stop major, major climate impacts we long ago passed the point where reductions or caps would even make a dent. To even have a hope of not seeing major disruptive climate change we would have had to be at the point of net-negative fossil carbon releases years ago. And we’re nowhere near that. Those changes are something of course. and we’d be in a (marginally) worse situation without them. But they’re overall just minor impacts. The changes required to actually address the issue have barely been contemplated, and will be massively disruptive.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > . . . mostly about what people want. Which is all marketing. Marketing is designed to influence and to make us want. We can't blame people because marketing to them works. > If you’re ever tried to take the booze from an alcoholic, it’s obvious what’s going to happen I don't think it is obvious what happens when you take booze away from an alcoholic. Are you aware that the absence of alcohol can kill them? Were you trying to kill them?
  - lazide 3y ago
    Often they’ll attack you while denying there is a problem. Occasionally they’ll be okay with it. At least until the DT’s. It’s usually not pretty either way. And doing it too fast can kill them, yes.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  > The political climate is mostly about what people want. Man someone should tell all the oil companies that are actively running campaigns to push propaganda on folks to change political opinions. Yes, it is "what people want". You're missing the line of "How did we get to the point of people wanting this". But instead of asking that question, you're jumping to blaming the victims and not the system that allowed a few people with money to completely change the thoughts and behaviors of millions of people. Now you're cooking with gas!
  - lazide 3y ago
    I’m pretty sure the people voting think it’s what they want - I’ve seen some get angry if you question it too.
mustafa_pasi 3y ago
The political climate is just an obfuscation. The electorate perceives the change to be too costly* and the climate risks to be too remote to justify this cost. The problem with reports such as these is that they always give you the big picture but do not directly relate it back to the individual. If people's home insurance suddenly jumped up 1000% due to recalculated natural disaster risks, that would suddenly make people rethink their positions. * I am actually not convinced either way. Some people believe it is so expensive it will necessitate degrowth, while others think that so much economic change will almost certainly spur economic growth. Either way I think that people who push the degrowth narrative are further reinforcing the view that climate action is too costly. Nonetheless it could be that they are right.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > I am actually not convinced either way. Some people believe it is so expensive it will necessitate degrowth, while others think that so much economic change will almost certainly spur economic growth. Either way I think that people who push the degrowth narrative are further reinforcing the view that climate action is too costly. Nonetheless it could be that they are right. Whatever your view on that is, it doesn't really matter because the costs if climate change goes unchecked are going to be catastrophically high - direct in terms of e.g. having to rebuild burned down/flooded/etc. areas, more electricity for AC, etc. or indirect such as having to accommodate mass migration from climate refugees.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    The price of unchecked climate change is the destruction of civilisation. It might as well be infinity.
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      Or zero - it's sort of a weird thing to think about, but I think at this point it is the likely outcome.
      - 3y ago
BlandDuck 3y ago
To be fair, there were other things on the agenda as well. The time was the height of the cold war, and 1983 was the year of the Stanislav Petrov incident that could potentially have started nuclear war. (Not to mention dealing with the Iran-Iraq war and working to reduce emissions CFC gasses to protect the Ozone layer). It is great that the world is now in a position to make serious progress on the green energy transition.

lazide 3y ago

The political climate is mostly about what people want. Dealing with this issue will require major changes in the economy (even now fossil fuel based), and national security/foreign policy (fossil fuel based now and for the foreseeable future). Both of these no one has any plans yet which wouldn’t require major changes in the way people live and the way the US interacts with the world which would put them at a major disadvantage with everyone else, and take a hit in creature comforts, prestige, and power. At least based on the options currently available to us. And this isn’t a problem caused just by the US. So even if the US did this, the rest of the world would keep on trucking and making the issue worse. Unless the US went to war or something? Which would definitely cause massive burning of fossil fuels (and nukes) which would definitely make everything worse, and kill a whole lot of people rather directly. And seems rather evil too. Until the problem is causing real, unavoidable, unambiguous issues for everyone, of course it’s going to be denied. And even then…. If you’re ever tried to take the booze from an alcoholic, it’s obvious what’s going to happen. And we’re all drunk on cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels, and have been for a very, very long time. Don’t look up!

mustafa_pasi 3y ago
We posted almost the same comment. I do disagree with one point. The US is the country with the most global power and is instrumental in driving global change so I really disagree that they do not hold a huge responsibility. I mean, Germany is trying to lead by example, but their attempt is pathetic. Nobody is going to care what Germany does and they do not have the economic and political power to enforce global change. But the US does. I am not saying the US can do it alone, but it has to show both initiative and willingness.
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  Not only that, but people see Germany as being fundamentally unserious about climate change when they retire nuclear and keep burning insane amounts of destructive brown coal. I don’t think the electricity mix is even significantly cleaner than the US’s EDIT: confirmed, the US had 365grams of CO2 per kWh (805lbs per MWh) but Germany had 385g per kWh in 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity-power-sector-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247991/annual-power-sector-carbon-intensity-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247991/annual-power-sec...
  - mustafa_pasi 3y ago
    People see Germany as a foolish naive nation which is currently hurting itself economically and making a clown of itself. It is having the opposite of the desired effect. Other countries will be more hesitant to transition to green technologies when they see Germany suffering.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      Really? Which countries would those be? All the European countries that have far higher renewable use than Germany? No one considers Germany a leader in renewables. It's just a straw man for the nuclear fanboys.
      - mustafa_pasi 3y ago
        Germany sees itself as a leader in the green transition even if this is not factually correct.
        olddustytrail 3y ago
        Oh, well you don't have to worry about other countries being put off by Germany's decisions, because no one else does. Good news, eh!
    - 3y ago
rsynnott 3y ago
> Both of these no one has any plans yet which wouldn’t require major changes in the way people live Eh... I mean, nearly every country in the EU has seen reducing greenhouse gas emissions for years (even _with_ replacement of some gas generation with higher-intensity coal generation due to the invasion of Ukraine), on the foot of building retrofitting, increased renewable generation, etc. The US and China have also been investing significantly in renewable generation (though, I believe, at least in the US's case, building retrofitting has yet to start on a large scale). US emissions are broadly declining and have been for a while, Chinese emissions have almost flatlined, though are still inching up. People are doing stuff. > the way the US interacts with the world which would put them at a major disadvantage with everyone else Huh? I would think that the US is actually in a rather good position here, certainly relative to Europe and probably to China. The US is very physically big, so lots of space for renewables, and is more self-sufficient on lower-carbon-intensity fossil fuel (ie gas, likely realistically essential as a transition fuel) than the others. It would also likely find lower-intensity agriculture easier to cope with, if it comes to that. > And this isn’t a problem caused just by the US. So even if the US did this, the rest of the world would keep on trucking and making the issue worse. China is if anything currently outpacing the US on renewable and other low-intensity (nuclear) generation capacity. This feels like a comment written 30 years ago, back when no-one was doing anything much. Today, the big three are doing some stuff, with plans for more. > Until the problem is causing real, unavoidable, unambiguous issues for everyone, of course it’s going to be denied. The denial is interesting. In the developed world, it's only a significant factor in the US, Canada, and Australia, all of which have large fossil fuel industries, and in all of which it has been highly politicised. (Similar pattern in the developing world; the big denial cheerleader there being Indonesia). In most countries, it is fairly broadly accepted to be happening, and to be at least largely humanity's fault. Even in countries where denial is a significant political issue, it is generally on the decline (as you'd expect; the percentage of the electorate who'll die off anyway before we see really major impact is declining).
- lazide 3y ago
  Ho man. To stop major, major climate impacts we long ago passed the point where reductions or caps would even make a dent. To even have a hope of not seeing major disruptive climate change we would have had to be at the point of net-negative fossil carbon releases years ago. And we’re nowhere near that. Those changes are something of course. and we’d be in a (marginally) worse situation without them. But they’re overall just minor impacts. The changes required to actually address the issue have barely been contemplated, and will be massively disruptive.
drewcoo 3y ago
> . . . mostly about what people want. Which is all marketing. Marketing is designed to influence and to make us want. We can't blame people because marketing to them works. > If you’re ever tried to take the booze from an alcoholic, it’s obvious what’s going to happen I don't think it is obvious what happens when you take booze away from an alcoholic. Are you aware that the absence of alcohol can kill them? Were you trying to kill them?
- lazide 3y ago
  Often they’ll attack you while denying there is a problem. Occasionally they’ll be okay with it. At least until the DT’s. It’s usually not pretty either way. And doing it too fast can kill them, yes.
aaomidi 3y ago
> The political climate is mostly about what people want. Man someone should tell all the oil companies that are actively running campaigns to push propaganda on folks to change political opinions. Yes, it is "what people want". You're missing the line of "How did we get to the point of people wanting this". But instead of asking that question, you're jumping to blaming the victims and not the system that allowed a few people with money to completely change the thoughts and behaviors of millions of people. Now you're cooking with gas!
- lazide 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure the people voting think it’s what they want - I’ve seen some get angry if you question it too.

mustafa_pasi 3y ago

The political climate is just an obfuscation. The electorate perceives the change to be too costly* and the climate risks to be too remote to justify this cost. The problem with reports such as these is that they always give you the big picture but do not directly relate it back to the individual. If people's home insurance suddenly jumped up 1000% due to recalculated natural disaster risks, that would suddenly make people rethink their positions. * I am actually not convinced either way. Some people believe it is so expensive it will necessitate degrowth, while others think that so much economic change will almost certainly spur economic growth. Either way I think that people who push the degrowth narrative are further reinforcing the view that climate action is too costly. Nonetheless it could be that they are right.

sofixa 3y ago
> I am actually not convinced either way. Some people believe it is so expensive it will necessitate degrowth, while others think that so much economic change will almost certainly spur economic growth. Either way I think that people who push the degrowth narrative are further reinforcing the view that climate action is too costly. Nonetheless it could be that they are right. Whatever your view on that is, it doesn't really matter because the costs if climate change goes unchecked are going to be catastrophically high - direct in terms of e.g. having to rebuild burned down/flooded/etc. areas, more electricity for AC, etc. or indirect such as having to accommodate mass migration from climate refugees.
- Filligree 3y ago
  The price of unchecked climate change is the destruction of civilisation. It might as well be infinity.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    Or zero - it's sort of a weird thing to think about, but I think at this point it is the likely outcome.
    - 3y ago

BlandDuck 3y ago

To be fair, there were other things on the agenda as well. The time was the height of the cold war, and 1983 was the year of the Stanislav Petrov incident that could potentially have started nuclear war. (Not to mention dealing with the Iran-Iraq war and working to reduce emissions CFC gasses to protect the Ozone layer). It is great that the world is now in a position to make serious progress on the green energy transition.