6 ms·

The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions isn't military, it's for ordinary consumer uses like heating, cooling, driving, and farming meat. No matter what t

The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions isn't military, it's for ordinary consumer uses like heating, cooling, driving, and farming meat. No matter what the form of government, lots of people will object very strongly if the solution to climate change is not having central heating, cars, hot water, or beef for dinner.

ribosometronome 3y ago
Does renewable power and hydrogen/electric vehicles not solve essentially all of what you listed, save beef?
- gravitronic 3y ago
  There's other significant issues, such as concrete. Read Bill Gates' "how to avoid a climate disaster" for a complete rundown, with receipts.
- Tanoc 3y ago
  Nope. The way we build things from the ground up has to change. Literally build things. Flat topped buildings made out of steel and concrete surrounded by pavement generate tons of heat that doesn't get dissipated, which cascades into creating high pressure air bubbles around towns and cities that prevent rain from approaching. That cascades even further into affecting weather and creating droughts, because all the pavement prevents water from being absorbed by the ground and entering the water table. That water creates flash floods since the ground underneath the pavement is too dry to absorb it, creating a vicious cycle where the water table drops even further and the soil compacts and becomes even more hydrophobic. We have to stop building parking lots everywhere, stop building flat top highrises, stop using concrete and steel, build everything with roofs designed to absorb heat and transfer it into the ground instead of radiate it, tear up a good chunk of the highways, parking lots, and surface streets, plant tons of trees and broad leaf greenery to shield from heat with shade and absorb it, and refill the water tables by pumping water back into the ground. All of which costs a ton of money. And what we should do, damn the financial cost and those who decry it. Slapping a Mickey Mouse Band-Aid onto a gaping wound that needs seventy two stitches is the equivalent of what people suggest when they say "Well I'll just use renewable energy."
neltnerb 3y ago
I think I would like to have safe housing, healthcare, nutritious food, and clean water more than "driving and farming meat" but I guess we all have our priorities. I think that can definitely be sustainable indefinitely, but not so long as companies and cultures are unable to make any kind of real concessions to reality. We should not be using plastic. For basically anything. We should never have started. We should barely be using cars. We should never have started. We should not be eating nearly as much meat as people do in rich countries. We'd use a fraction of the agricultural area and be healthier to boot. Yet somehow meat being cheap is a god-given right? I object to lots of things that reality forces me to deal with.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  I was in full agreement with your comment until... > We should not be eating nearly as much meat as people do in rich countries. My peasant ancestors were eating meat every day 500 years ago. You can find different groups of people all over the world that are documented eating absurdly meat-heavy diets historically. Yes, at least some of us believe meat is very important for human flourishing. In strictly measurable health terms, I am extremely healthy, at least according to current medical science, so I'd rather not change my diet.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Sorry that saving the planet might cause minor inconvenience for you. There were far fewer factory farms and antibiotics 500 years ago, and 95% fewer people. What was sustainable then isn't sustainable now.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      If the price is saving the planet is turning it into the dystopia we seem to be zooming towards full speed, I will be happy to not pay it and suffer the consequences of our civilization collapsing. I’m not changing my behavior and I will fight vigorously for it. If you stopped all meat production today it would not save you. (Post)industrial society itself is what is unsustainable. There is no way around that. There is no technological solution - we can barely maintain the pretense of keeping up with all the problems our tech causes. You can buy time (maybe), that’s all. Technological man cannot seem to grasp humility. There is no controlling the world. This article and some other comments go into some great detail. >might cause minor inconvenience for you. My current great health is not a “convenience.” It is an incredible blessing and I will fight to maintain the things that seemingly contribute to it.
maerF0x0 3y ago
> majority of greenhouse gas emissions To be extra precise, human initiated greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding is about half of the emissions are natural and there's little we can do about their emission (but can do about their sequestration). Of course that doesn't/shouldn't stop us from addressing the half we can :)
- amrocha 3y ago
  What's the point of being "extra precise" here? Aren't you just giving deniers a talking point?
  - knewter 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - amrocha 3y ago
      Well no, but it's either pedantic or meant to mislead. If we're in agreement we need to do something about CO2, then we both know we're talking about human sources of CO2, so why be pedantic?
      - knewter 3y ago
        For one thing, because it's important to know the lower bound of success in order to identify the reasonableness of the proposed solution, competing its perceived costs with its perceived benefits.
        amrocha 3y ago
        That entire sentence means nothing, and is entirely irrelevant to my comment and the discussion at hand.
      - maerF0x0 3y ago
        Also part of my point is that we do not have to focus on human emission as the only lever. We can also focus on sequestration of natural emission (or sequestration of atmospheric carbon as a whole). Telling people to not emit carbon dioxide from, say, a health related usage (sanitation) IMO is foolish when we can choose to sequester from other areas. Frankly I think we need to focus on the decarbonization of energy, rather than regulating human behavior.
midoridensha 3y ago
>No matter what the form of government, lots of *Americans* will object very strongly if the solution to climate change is not having central heating, cars, hot water, or beef for dinner. FTFY. Countless people outside the US get along just fine without cars, central heating, and the entire 1B+ nation of India is fine without beef for dinner.
- lazide 3y ago
  FYI, India has a large Muslim population, and they eat beef on the regular.

ribosometronome 3y ago

Does renewable power and hydrogen/electric vehicles not solve essentially all of what you listed, save beef?

gravitronic 3y ago
There's other significant issues, such as concrete. Read Bill Gates' "how to avoid a climate disaster" for a complete rundown, with receipts.
Tanoc 3y ago
Nope. The way we build things from the ground up has to change. Literally build things. Flat topped buildings made out of steel and concrete surrounded by pavement generate tons of heat that doesn't get dissipated, which cascades into creating high pressure air bubbles around towns and cities that prevent rain from approaching. That cascades even further into affecting weather and creating droughts, because all the pavement prevents water from being absorbed by the ground and entering the water table. That water creates flash floods since the ground underneath the pavement is too dry to absorb it, creating a vicious cycle where the water table drops even further and the soil compacts and becomes even more hydrophobic. We have to stop building parking lots everywhere, stop building flat top highrises, stop using concrete and steel, build everything with roofs designed to absorb heat and transfer it into the ground instead of radiate it, tear up a good chunk of the highways, parking lots, and surface streets, plant tons of trees and broad leaf greenery to shield from heat with shade and absorb it, and refill the water tables by pumping water back into the ground. All of which costs a ton of money. And what we should do, damn the financial cost and those who decry it. Slapping a Mickey Mouse Band-Aid onto a gaping wound that needs seventy two stitches is the equivalent of what people suggest when they say "Well I'll just use renewable energy."

neltnerb 3y ago

I think I would like to have safe housing, healthcare, nutritious food, and clean water more than "driving and farming meat" but I guess we all have our priorities. I think that can definitely be sustainable indefinitely, but not so long as companies and cultures are unable to make any kind of real concessions to reality. We should not be using plastic. For basically anything. We should never have started. We should barely be using cars. We should never have started. We should not be eating nearly as much meat as people do in rich countries. We'd use a fraction of the agricultural area and be healthier to boot. Yet somehow meat being cheap is a god-given right? I object to lots of things that reality forces me to deal with.

Amezarak 3y ago
I was in full agreement with your comment until... > We should not be eating nearly as much meat as people do in rich countries. My peasant ancestors were eating meat every day 500 years ago. You can find different groups of people all over the world that are documented eating absurdly meat-heavy diets historically. Yes, at least some of us believe meat is very important for human flourishing. In strictly measurable health terms, I am extremely healthy, at least according to current medical science, so I'd rather not change my diet.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Sorry that saving the planet might cause minor inconvenience for you. There were far fewer factory farms and antibiotics 500 years ago, and 95% fewer people. What was sustainable then isn't sustainable now.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    If the price is saving the planet is turning it into the dystopia we seem to be zooming towards full speed, I will be happy to not pay it and suffer the consequences of our civilization collapsing. I’m not changing my behavior and I will fight vigorously for it. If you stopped all meat production today it would not save you. (Post)industrial society itself is what is unsustainable. There is no way around that. There is no technological solution - we can barely maintain the pretense of keeping up with all the problems our tech causes. You can buy time (maybe), that’s all. Technological man cannot seem to grasp humility. There is no controlling the world. This article and some other comments go into some great detail. >might cause minor inconvenience for you. My current great health is not a “convenience.” It is an incredible blessing and I will fight to maintain the things that seemingly contribute to it.

maerF0x0 3y ago

> majority of greenhouse gas emissions To be extra precise, human initiated greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding is about half of the emissions are natural and there's little we can do about their emission (but can do about their sequestration). Of course that doesn't/shouldn't stop us from addressing the half we can :)

amrocha 3y ago
What's the point of being "extra precise" here? Aren't you just giving deniers a talking point?
- knewter 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - amrocha 3y ago
    Well no, but it's either pedantic or meant to mislead. If we're in agreement we need to do something about CO2, then we both know we're talking about human sources of CO2, so why be pedantic?
    - knewter 3y ago
      For one thing, because it's important to know the lower bound of success in order to identify the reasonableness of the proposed solution, competing its perceived costs with its perceived benefits.
      - amrocha 3y ago
        That entire sentence means nothing, and is entirely irrelevant to my comment and the discussion at hand.
    - maerF0x0 3y ago
      Also part of my point is that we do not have to focus on human emission as the only lever. We can also focus on sequestration of natural emission (or sequestration of atmospheric carbon as a whole). Telling people to not emit carbon dioxide from, say, a health related usage (sanitation) IMO is foolish when we can choose to sequester from other areas. Frankly I think we need to focus on the decarbonization of energy, rather than regulating human behavior.

midoridensha 3y ago

>No matter what the form of government, lots of *Americans* will object very strongly if the solution to climate change is not having central heating, cars, hot water, or beef for dinner. FTFY. Countless people outside the US get along just fine without cars, central heating, and the entire 1B+ nation of India is fine without beef for dinner.

lazide 3y ago
FYI, India has a large Muslim population, and they eat beef on the regular.