3 ms·

That depends on the profits. The problem is solved only if the cost of fighting regulations (misinformation, lobbying, discrediting, defaming, bribing and sabot

by goku12 3y ago

That depends on the profits. The problem is solved only if the cost of fighting regulations (misinformation, lobbying, discrediting, defaming, bribing and sabotage) is less than the profits people make by causing the problem in the first place. There are several examples of this - but none more obvious than the climate catastrophe.

Retric 3y ago
The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of already getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. Battery electric cars already make up 26% of new cars sales in China and those cars are powered by an increasingly green grid. Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed.
- goku12 3y ago
  > America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. All those claims ring hollow after all the serious damage to the biosphere that has been done and the rate at which the world is barreling down into a catastrophe. We have still not settled on where the current temperature rise will settle. What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? > The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. The excess CO2 PPM would have been significantly lesser if the scientists were taken seriously when it mattered. The first paper on the global greenhouse effect was is 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was more than enough time to develop and switch to something else. Instead we got everything from misinformation campaigns, political double speaks, sabotaged careers and research - all so that some people could protect their comfortable, but exploitative revenue streams. This goes back to the fundamental problem I was talking about - problems will be solved as long as it doesn't stand in the way of profits. Otherwise, any collateral damage is acceptable to some.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? It is being addressed. A month before net zero the problem won’t be over, but it’s also far from unaddressed. Progress is about rates of change not success. A real argument can be made that we are more than 1/3 of the way to net zero. Back in 1892 nobody was willing to give up heating their homes with coal, but today are homes can remain toasty without the need to burn fossil fuels. Coal is almost dead so it’s mostly oil and natural gas which are being replaced and far less plentiful. If nothing else at current oil consumption proven reserves run out around 2070. Humanity could absolutely fuck the world beyond recognition using coal, oil isn’t as plentiful.
- palata 3y ago
  > America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. That's a completely wrong way to look at it. A country can lower its emissions by outsourcing the activities that make them. Do I have to elaborate on what America could have been outsourcing to China since 2000? The per capita C02 emissions, assuming that you don't ignore all of those that happen outside the country, have kept increasing since 2000. > Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed. I would argue that it is not being actively addressed at all. Hell we don't even agree on whether we need to "accelerate our emissions with the hope that a miracle will happen and give us a technology that saves us" or "slow down and start preparing society for a world with less energy".
  - Retric 3y ago
    > could have been outsourcing to China since 2000? No need to guess. You can actually look at what was imported and exported and it’s nowhere close to making up that gap. 2.2 Billion tons / year isn’t difficult to track down. > I would argue that it is not being actively addressed at all. Coal is dying, oil and natural gas aren’t nearly as plentiful. Even if you assume we’re going to extract all the oil and natural gas that exists the worst case is net zero by 2100, with better options leaving more carbon in the ground. As 2 °C means ~620 ppm that’s seemingly already off the table which wasn’t guaranteed 20 years ago.
    - palata 3y ago
      > You can actually look at what was imported and exported You will have to elaborate on that. Do you mean that somewhere, online, are listed all the INDIRECT emissions of everything that was imported? Where? > 2.2 Billion tons / year isn’t difficult to track down. It's not like a country imports parcels of CO2, how do you think it works? If we could track down the CO2 emissions of goods, we could write it on the packaging and let people choose the one they want. But we can't, because it's everything but simple. > Even if you assume we’re going to extract all the oil and natural gas that exists the worst case is net zero by 2100 You do realize that it is still largely enough CO2 to make large portions of Earth (around the equator) literally unliveable for humans? Meaning that billions of people will have to relocate, meaning global instability, wars and famines absolutely everywhere, right?

by goku12 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of already getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. Battery electric cars already make up 26% of new cars sales in China and those cars are powered by an increasingly green grid. Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed.

goku12 3y ago
> America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. All those claims ring hollow after all the serious damage to the biosphere that has been done and the rate at which the world is barreling down into a catastrophe. We have still not settled on where the current temperature rise will settle. What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? > The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. The excess CO2 PPM would have been significantly lesser if the scientists were taken seriously when it mattered. The first paper on the global greenhouse effect was is 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was more than enough time to develop and switch to something else. Instead we got everything from misinformation campaigns, political double speaks, sabotaged careers and research - all so that some people could protect their comfortable, but exploitative revenue streams. This goes back to the fundamental problem I was talking about - problems will be solved as long as it doesn't stand in the way of profits. Otherwise, any collateral damage is acceptable to some.
- Retric 3y ago
  > What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? It is being addressed. A month before net zero the problem won’t be over, but it’s also far from unaddressed. Progress is about rates of change not success. A real argument can be made that we are more than 1/3 of the way to net zero. Back in 1892 nobody was willing to give up heating their homes with coal, but today are homes can remain toasty without the need to burn fossil fuels. Coal is almost dead so it’s mostly oil and natural gas which are being replaced and far less plentiful. If nothing else at current oil consumption proven reserves run out around 2070. Humanity could absolutely fuck the world beyond recognition using coal, oil isn’t as plentiful.
palata 3y ago
> America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. That's a completely wrong way to look at it. A country can lower its emissions by outsourcing the activities that make them. Do I have to elaborate on what America could have been outsourcing to China since 2000? The per capita C02 emissions, assuming that you don't ignore all of those that happen outside the country, have kept increasing since 2000. > Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed. I would argue that it is not being actively addressed at all. Hell we don't even agree on whether we need to "accelerate our emissions with the hope that a miracle will happen and give us a technology that saves us" or "slow down and start preparing society for a world with less energy".
- Retric 3y ago
  > could have been outsourcing to China since 2000? No need to guess. You can actually look at what was imported and exported and it’s nowhere close to making up that gap. 2.2 Billion tons / year isn’t difficult to track down. > I would argue that it is not being actively addressed at all. Coal is dying, oil and natural gas aren’t nearly as plentiful. Even if you assume we’re going to extract all the oil and natural gas that exists the worst case is net zero by 2100, with better options leaving more carbon in the ground. As 2 °C means ~620 ppm that’s seemingly already off the table which wasn’t guaranteed 20 years ago.
  - palata 3y ago
    > You can actually look at what was imported and exported You will have to elaborate on that. Do you mean that somewhere, online, are listed all the INDIRECT emissions of everything that was imported? Where? > 2.2 Billion tons / year isn’t difficult to track down. It's not like a country imports parcels of CO2, how do you think it works? If we could track down the CO2 emissions of goods, we could write it on the packaging and let people choose the one they want. But we can't, because it's everything but simple. > Even if you assume we’re going to extract all the oil and natural gas that exists the worst case is net zero by 2100 You do realize that it is still largely enough CO2 to make large portions of Earth (around the equator) literally unliveable for humans? Meaning that billions of people will have to relocate, meaning global instability, wars and famines absolutely everywhere, right?