3 ms·
The problem with climate change is that no one understands the staggering scale of what has to happen to address it. > Literally nobody is suggesting we do tha
by jlmorton 3y ago
The problem with climate change is that no one understands the staggering scale of what has to happen to address it.
> Literally nobody is suggesting we do that.
Okay, well what are we suggesting? Do we want to stay within the 1.5C warming target?
* If we banned all global commercial aviation tomorrow (~750Mt), we would save 4.5 Gt over 6 years, delaying our lock-in date by about 5 weeks.
* If we banned all global passenger vehicles tomorrow (~5Gt), about 30Gt over 6 years, we delay the date by ~9 months.
I'm sorry, but if no one is suggesting we do these things, why is so much ink spilled over the 1.5C warming carbon budget?
If you don't want to breach it, we _have_ to do these things, there is no other choice. You can't just tweak US CAFE standards a little bit. Even if you immediately ban every single car and truck on the road on the entire planet, you're nowhere even remotely close to where you need to be to prevent 1.5C warming.
If you ban all cars globally, all trucks, all global commercial aviation, if you immaculately create 50 billion carbon-free solar panels to provide free and green solar renewable energy for every single residential household on the planet, you've still only delayed things by a couple years.
Fertilizer is about 2.6Gt annually, 15.6Gt over six years. Are we going to keep that?
What are you suggesting we should do?
And this is exactly what the point of my comment is all about. Things like the linked article in this story are designed to allow people to moralize about climate change without affirmatively supporting a particular policy choice. It's just a club to beat people over the head with, without actually describing what the solution is.
It gives people the idea that we _could_ meet these targets if we wanted to, maybe with some minor changes, some cost that someone else could absorb.
But we can't. The only way we could meet the 1.5C warming target is with massive, drastic changes to the lives of all of us, changes so large that our lives would be unrecognizable, and indeed, enormous numbers would die.
- lamontcg 3y ago> Do we want to stay within the 1.5C warming target? No, we've fucked that up and that ship has sailed. The people raising the alarm over that level being breached aren't actually suggesting that there's any reasonable way to prevent it. That may very well be a messaging problem, but mostly because of people like you that have managed to entirely misread it. > What are you suggesting we should do? Something along the lines of the carbon wedges proposal from 2004: http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/impee/topics/stabilisationwedges/files/Stabilisation%20Wedge%20v1%20PDF%20WITH%20NOTES.pdf http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/impee/topics/stabilisationwedges/... Each wedge is a 25GtC reduction of emissions over the next 50 years. We should have started 20 years ago, we could choose to start now. Note that "banning all cars" is not one of the proposed wedges.