4 ms·

> [climate change] can be entirely prevented ... People need to accept that this statement is just incorrect. We cannot stop it in the near future. Even if we

> [climate change] can be entirely prevented ... People need to accept that this statement is just incorrect. We cannot stop it in the near future. Even if we had the means of producing non-CO2 energy in quantities enough to provide all our energy needs today (that is, net-zero CO2 today), what we've already added will still continue to add heat. We do not have the facilities to produce bio-jet fuel in industrial quantities at inexpensive prices. It's going to take years to convert the elect grid to wind and solar, and that's even when people want to do it because it's cheaper. We need some way to replace all the fossil fuel used in agriculture, somehow make concrete net-zero, efficiently create steel without CO2. Ain't happening any time soon, even everyone wanted it. > ... if you can only somehow get through to people Actually, a large number of people have actually decided. They want to ignore it. It's not the choice you want, and I don't think it's a responsible or wise choice, but if you want to actually solve the problem, you need to deal with that reality. Just saying "well, if we could only pass a law and force people..." is foolish (which is the next step after "getting through to people" doesn't work because they already made their choice). If you want to solve the problem, make people want to do it of their own free will. For instance, make it cheaper to be net-zero CO2 than to burn it. Make it cheaper to take out CO2 from the atmosphere than to burn it. Make it so much cheaper to use less than people want to use less. Unfortunately, there are some hard problems from a chemistry standpoint here.

Aachen 3y ago
The main comment I have is this: even though 1.5 degrees is is unavoidable because there's not enough willpower as you say, the runaway effects are very uncertain (both when and how bad). You're technically correct that warming is unavoidable (indeed, some of it is already here), but I think you're overlooking that it still makes sense to make it clear to people that we can and should avoid worse. Current projections based on committed and implemented policies have us already avoiding a +5°C world, but if we stop caring, that's still on the table. What people do, based on their opinion as informed by the information they get, matters. > It's going to take years to convert the elect grid to wind and solar, and that's even when people want to do it because it's cheaper. Exactly. We still have years (sufficient years to avoid much worse than 1.5 degrees), and we had more years before. It's starting to happen now because it's cheaper, not because it's the right thing to do for those alive 50+ years from now (estimate, idk the exact value). That's perhaps the most depressing part: we can't make people care about things that aren't exceedingly obvious and it causes a lot of suffering. Even now, with events starting to happen that would have been very unlikely without the already-here warming, we're nitpicking over what might be the cheapest path instead of making a comprehensive plan with all available options included in optimal proportions to minimise the total cost, and breaking ground such that we're at least going to be finished transitioning the electricity generation part of the equation in 20 years or so. Don't need to force anyone if you can offer them nice jobs building the infrastructure we need anyway. > make people want to do it of their own free will. For instance, make it cheaper to be net-zero CO2 than to burn it. Thermodynamics wants to have a word with you :( if it were that simple, that's what would have been done. Who wouldn't want cheaper energy? Don't even need climate change to want that. Since that didn't happen before, I don't see why it suddenly would now if we only want it hard enough. We might get lucky with breakthroughs, but in the meantime, it makes sense to try and get through to people that maybe they should look at heat pumps for their next gas burner upgrade (for example, and as local climate permits of course)
- ath3nd 3y ago
  > I don't see why it suddenly would now if we only want it hard enough. It wouldn't. It hasn't happened so far or at least what's been happening has been painfully slow. We don't have the time to convince mom-n-pap who don't see why their SUV is a problem. We don't have time to convince your average gym bro who has suddenly adopted an all-beef diet to look swole. We don't have the time to convince big oil to stop investing in and opening new oil refineries. What we do have the time for is organizing enough people who see where we are heading and voting and electing for representatives that support a green/fossil free agenda. Removing all the ridiculous farming subsidies on beef/animal agriculture, stopping with bailing banks and oil companies and holding them accountable with jail time and company-ending fines when they mess up seems to be a step in the right direction. Creating enough criminal/punitive and economical/taxation incentives to FORCE everybody to get on board with a fossil-free world is the only clear path to mitigating what's already happening and accelerating in nature. Everything else is just waiting for the hammer to fall.

Aachen 3y ago

The main comment I have is this: even though 1.5 degrees is is unavoidable because there's not enough willpower as you say, the runaway effects are very uncertain (both when and how bad). You're technically correct that warming is unavoidable (indeed, some of it is already here), but I think you're overlooking that it still makes sense to make it clear to people that we can and should avoid worse. Current projections based on committed and implemented policies have us already avoiding a +5°C world, but if we stop caring, that's still on the table. What people do, based on their opinion as informed by the information they get, matters. > It's going to take years to convert the elect grid to wind and solar, and that's even when people want to do it because it's cheaper. Exactly. We still have years (sufficient years to avoid much worse than 1.5 degrees), and we had more years before. It's starting to happen now because it's cheaper, not because it's the right thing to do for those alive 50+ years from now (estimate, idk the exact value). That's perhaps the most depressing part: we can't make people care about things that aren't exceedingly obvious and it causes a lot of suffering. Even now, with events starting to happen that would have been very unlikely without the already-here warming, we're nitpicking over what might be the cheapest path instead of making a comprehensive plan with all available options included in optimal proportions to minimise the total cost, and breaking ground such that we're at least going to be finished transitioning the electricity generation part of the equation in 20 years or so. Don't need to force anyone if you can offer them nice jobs building the infrastructure we need anyway. > make people want to do it of their own free will. For instance, make it cheaper to be net-zero CO2 than to burn it. Thermodynamics wants to have a word with you :( if it were that simple, that's what would have been done. Who wouldn't want cheaper energy? Don't even need climate change to want that. Since that didn't happen before, I don't see why it suddenly would now if we only want it hard enough. We might get lucky with breakthroughs, but in the meantime, it makes sense to try and get through to people that maybe they should look at heat pumps for their next gas burner upgrade (for example, and as local climate permits of course)

ath3nd 3y ago
> I don't see why it suddenly would now if we only want it hard enough. It wouldn't. It hasn't happened so far or at least what's been happening has been painfully slow. We don't have the time to convince mom-n-pap who don't see why their SUV is a problem. We don't have time to convince your average gym bro who has suddenly adopted an all-beef diet to look swole. We don't have the time to convince big oil to stop investing in and opening new oil refineries. What we do have the time for is organizing enough people who see where we are heading and voting and electing for representatives that support a green/fossil free agenda. Removing all the ridiculous farming subsidies on beef/animal agriculture, stopping with bailing banks and oil companies and holding them accountable with jail time and company-ending fines when they mess up seems to be a step in the right direction. Creating enough criminal/punitive and economical/taxation incentives to FORCE everybody to get on board with a fossil-free world is the only clear path to mitigating what's already happening and accelerating in nature. Everything else is just waiting for the hammer to fall.