4 ms·

I disagree, strongly. I think the next phase will be people like me, not climate change deniers but climate change doomers. The US could go carbon neutral tom

I disagree, strongly. I think the next phase will be people like me, not climate change deniers but climate change doomers. The US could go carbon neutral tomorrow and it wouldnt make a dent because of China, India and Russia. 3 Billion people pumping pollution into the the air like their is no tomorrow vs. a couple hundred million reducing their footprint isn't going to make a lick of difference. I think people have always had a hard time understanding things at scale, especially a global scale. The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be.

ianai 3y ago
That's assuming the situation follows your specified path. In reality, an economy transitioned to tech beyond fossil fuels probably enjoys much greater production dynamics. For instance, the US could build out nuclear power to satisfy base board power and then grow that base by which ever rate it decided per year. At some point, mass desalination of sea water becomes affordable because electricity drives down the price. There, too, sea water is a huge resource for literally every mineral we could need (lithium, gold, uranium, you name it). Further, any co2 removed from the ocean will then be scrubbed from the atmosphere-provided the removed water eventually finds its way back, and it would. With more water and more electricity, more of the land is usable for things like habitation, commercial/industrial, and agriculture purposes. (The US and globe has a ton of unproductive land which can be productive with some combination of water+fertilizer.) There's a relationship between the growth of power produced by an economy and its yearly growth of gdp. The above will also take place with solar. Eventually we will have the tech to power things off whatever sun they get through the paint/coating on their surface. At some point, the other national players will see those benefits going to other nations and change accordingly. Or they will be left in the past.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  You'll still mine oil for tires and roads, and you'll have gasoline as a byproduct. You'll use the gasoline to mine lithium and to transport used batteries. And you'll bury the batteries somewhere out of sight. Just like we're doing with nuclear. None of these solutions actually help preserve live. Life can thrive in a carbon rich atmosphere. It has before. But many years from now when the lithium batteries decay and the nuclear stores erode, life on Earth will actually cease.
  - ianai 3y ago
    We just fundamentally disagree on the criticality of hydrocarbons. In your version of the future, we’re all dead. In mine, the future might include a better life for all.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      In your version of the future, we create the battery and the nuclear problems and we still have to deal with the hydrocarbon problem. In my version we discuss what to do about the hydrocarbon problem.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    There is no problem mining oil for tires and roads. The carbon is sequestered. The problem is burning fossil fuels and producing CO2. Also, tires and roads are a byproduct of refining, and much less is produced than gasoline. Mining lithium doesn't require gasoline. Mining can be electrified like many other things. Probably easier to electrify than long distance transport since it is short distances. Nuclear waste is not a danger in the far future. The radioactive products decay on short time scale. Most of them are gone in century, but they want to store them for. Lithium batteries aren't a problem if they did decay. Lithium is a common, non-toxic metal. Some batteries, like lead acid in every car, have toxic metals but is small scale overall and not that dangerous.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      Not nuclear in a century? Who sold you that? It doesn't matter. We can't discuss the pros and cons because downvotes prevent me from commenting. The choice is made for you. Enjoy. Knowingly or unknowingly, I'm sure you're destroying the environment. And since we can't discuss it, you can't convince me otherwise. I'll vote against you until I die because we can't discuss the topic. How can I learn if you're right?
    - 3y ago
tim333 3y ago
China India and Russia are an issue but will probably cut back if there start to be noticeable problems. China is already cracking ahead on the solar and nuclear.
hodgesrm 3y ago
> The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be. The problem with this attitude is that it prevents you from solving problems that might actually affect the odds of humans making it to tomorrow or any other near-term date. Right now it looks as if we're in the run-up to World War III. [0] Perhaps we should spend a little energy preventing that. Or perhaps aquifer exhaustion, a long-standing issue exacerbated by climate change. [1] Or solving the political polarization that prevents us from addressing other problems. [2] Humans have faced all of these problems in the past and generally solved them. Climate change is obviously a serious and challenging problem. But it seems doubtful civilization will be directly overturned any time soon by climate change alone. Europeans and others made it through crises like the Black Plague, which killed a third or more of the population without extinguishing the arc of civilization. [3] It's the knock-on effects we need to worry about, as well as the things that prevent us from fixing them. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/opinion/china-taiwan-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/opinion/china-taiwan-war.... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/climate/global-groundwater-aquifer-levels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/climate/global-groundwate... [2] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/mandatory-national-service/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
nojvek 3y ago
The scale at which China is deploying Solar is more than rest of world combined. It’s frankly quite amazing. If any major economy achieved zero emissions for productions of electricity, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was either China using Solar and Nuclear, or France betting on Nuclear. We call China our enemy, but the biggest enemy of US is US. We can either adapt or live in the past. Electricity prices haven’t changed much in last 50 years in real currency. Economies that heavily invest in cheap energy, and high autonomy will win out.
allan_s 3y ago
The issue is that Chinese people think the same. Be as good as you can, regardless of others, so that they will have no whataboutism to hide behind. Don't underestimate the power of peer pressure, even at the nation-level.
blharr 3y ago
Per person, China India and Russia are still lower in emissions than the US. The people who individually have the most impact and likely ability to reduce their carbon footprint is therefore those in the US.

ianai 3y ago

That's assuming the situation follows your specified path. In reality, an economy transitioned to tech beyond fossil fuels probably enjoys much greater production dynamics. For instance, the US could build out nuclear power to satisfy base board power and then grow that base by which ever rate it decided per year. At some point, mass desalination of sea water becomes affordable because electricity drives down the price. There, too, sea water is a huge resource for literally every mineral we could need (lithium, gold, uranium, you name it). Further, any co2 removed from the ocean will then be scrubbed from the atmosphere-provided the removed water eventually finds its way back, and it would. With more water and more electricity, more of the land is usable for things like habitation, commercial/industrial, and agriculture purposes. (The US and globe has a ton of unproductive land which can be productive with some combination of water+fertilizer.) There's a relationship between the growth of power produced by an economy and its yearly growth of gdp. The above will also take place with solar. Eventually we will have the tech to power things off whatever sun they get through the paint/coating on their surface. At some point, the other national players will see those benefits going to other nations and change accordingly. Or they will be left in the past.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
You'll still mine oil for tires and roads, and you'll have gasoline as a byproduct. You'll use the gasoline to mine lithium and to transport used batteries. And you'll bury the batteries somewhere out of sight. Just like we're doing with nuclear. None of these solutions actually help preserve live. Life can thrive in a carbon rich atmosphere. It has before. But many years from now when the lithium batteries decay and the nuclear stores erode, life on Earth will actually cease.
- ianai 3y ago
  We just fundamentally disagree on the criticality of hydrocarbons. In your version of the future, we’re all dead. In mine, the future might include a better life for all.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    In your version of the future, we create the battery and the nuclear problems and we still have to deal with the hydrocarbon problem. In my version we discuss what to do about the hydrocarbon problem.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  There is no problem mining oil for tires and roads. The carbon is sequestered. The problem is burning fossil fuels and producing CO2. Also, tires and roads are a byproduct of refining, and much less is produced than gasoline. Mining lithium doesn't require gasoline. Mining can be electrified like many other things. Probably easier to electrify than long distance transport since it is short distances. Nuclear waste is not a danger in the far future. The radioactive products decay on short time scale. Most of them are gone in century, but they want to store them for. Lithium batteries aren't a problem if they did decay. Lithium is a common, non-toxic metal. Some batteries, like lead acid in every car, have toxic metals but is small scale overall and not that dangerous.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Not nuclear in a century? Who sold you that? It doesn't matter. We can't discuss the pros and cons because downvotes prevent me from commenting. The choice is made for you. Enjoy. Knowingly or unknowingly, I'm sure you're destroying the environment. And since we can't discuss it, you can't convince me otherwise. I'll vote against you until I die because we can't discuss the topic. How can I learn if you're right?
  - 3y ago

tim333 3y ago

China India and Russia are an issue but will probably cut back if there start to be noticeable problems. China is already cracking ahead on the solar and nuclear.

hodgesrm 3y ago

> The ONLY answer, live your life like there's no tomorrow because chances are is there isn't going to be. The problem with this attitude is that it prevents you from solving problems that might actually affect the odds of humans making it to tomorrow or any other near-term date. Right now it looks as if we're in the run-up to World War III. [0] Perhaps we should spend a little energy preventing that. Or perhaps aquifer exhaustion, a long-standing issue exacerbated by climate change. [1] Or solving the political polarization that prevents us from addressing other problems. [2] Humans have faced all of these problems in the past and generally solved them. Climate change is obviously a serious and challenging problem. But it seems doubtful civilization will be directly overturned any time soon by climate change alone. Europeans and others made it through crises like the Black Plague, which killed a third or more of the population without extinguishing the arc of civilization. [3] It's the knock-on effects we need to worry about, as well as the things that prevent us from fixing them. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/opinion/china-taiwan-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/opinion/china-taiwan-war.... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/climate/global-groundwater-aquifer-levels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/climate/global-groundwate... [2] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/mandatory-national-service/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

nojvek 3y ago

The scale at which China is deploying Solar is more than rest of world combined. It’s frankly quite amazing. If any major economy achieved zero emissions for productions of electricity, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was either China using Solar and Nuclear, or France betting on Nuclear. We call China our enemy, but the biggest enemy of US is US. We can either adapt or live in the past. Electricity prices haven’t changed much in last 50 years in real currency. Economies that heavily invest in cheap energy, and high autonomy will win out.

allan_s 3y ago

The issue is that Chinese people think the same. Be as good as you can, regardless of others, so that they will have no whataboutism to hide behind. Don't underestimate the power of peer pressure, even at the nation-level.

blharr 3y ago

Per person, China India and Russia are still lower in emissions than the US. The people who individually have the most impact and likely ability to reduce their carbon footprint is therefore those in the US.