3 ms·

Before we start filling our atmosphere with theoretical solutions, shouldn't we reduce as much of emissions and consumption and possible? We humans consume an

Before we start filling our atmosphere with theoretical solutions, shouldn't we reduce as much of emissions and consumption and possible? We humans consume an insane amount of natural resources. We have built many of our societies around global interdependence. We produce a constant flood of stuff that is consumed quickly and discarded. We could make a big impact simply shifting to more local economies. For example, a recent lead poisoning issue in the US was tracked back to apple sauce pouches sold at the dollar store. Little could be done legally because of how complex the supply chain was. I don't remember all the details, but multiple countries were involved from growing the apples, processing the apple sauces, packaging, etc. We don't need such insane systems all powered by energy consumption. We just need local sources of damn apples for our kids to snack on.

MandieD 3y ago
It was apparently intentionally-tainted cinnamon in apple sauce pouches, but confirms your point about the complexity of food supply chains making it more likely for bad stuff to get in: https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investigation-elevated-lead-chromium-levels-cinnamon-applesauce-pouches-november-2023 https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investi...
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Oh that's an important update I hadn't seen, thanks!
moffkalast 3y ago
Frankly it's not one or the other, it's both at the same time as much as possible because we're extremely late to this party.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  How do we control that? The medical industry has the challenge of having to intervene to a late stage illness with multiple interventions that must be titrated appropriately. They have the benefit of a much smaller scale though, and they've researched and learned from past cases. How do we intervene in the entire planet with multiple modes of change without making things worse? I reach for the solution of removing impact as much as possible mainly because it feels much safer. We can reduce our current level of impact and we're really just getting out of the planets way. There's plenty of risk with regards to human cost as we remove and simplify systems, but at least that's the impact falling more directly in the species that caused the problem in the first place.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    Well there are risks of course, and it will most likely make things slightly worse for a while with less solar power and smaller crop yields with less sunlight, but there's really no other way to fix this mess. The simple fact is that removing all of our impact in terms of just stopping release of C02 and methane (as impossible that would be to achieve with our entire society built on energy dense fuels and entrenched interest in keeping it that way) would not be enough at this point. We are cumulatively increasing atmospheric energy retention while also reducing reflectivity and both of those are more or less permanent for a while. Safe or not we'll need to add more reflectivity to give the ecosystem time to recover. Carbon capture won't help in the short term either, the oceans have absorbed too much already and will start releasing it if atmospheric ppm falls below the absorbed density. To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      It sounds like we likely agree that there is some level of reduction that would work, but that unrealistic that people will be willing to go that far. Where we may be talking past each other a bit (sorry if I am) is the risk and reward of untested, theoretical solution that impact the entire planet. > To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs. While I agree here in theory, we know the general side effects and efficacy of chemotherapy. We also know the scale of impact when it doesn't work. We aren't so lucky with global interventions like releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. We only have theories of what may happen, but we're talking about the entire planet and everything on it. We don't know what the real effects will be, or as they say - we don't know what we don't know. As for Steve Jobs, I never really understood the idea of him as a cautionary tale. He knew what his diagnosis was, what treatments were available, and what would likely be the outcome. He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. I hope everyone is that lucky.
seiferteric 3y ago
This would take decades at least, we need something else in our back pocket in case millions start to die from heat exhaustion. Even if somehow we stop all CO2 emissions today, the earth will continue to warm for like a couple more centuries.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  What would take decades? Nearly every business switched to work from home in a matter of weeks because the fear of a pandemic gripped most politicians. Why couldn't we do that now to reduce our use of oil? The fact is we have a massive amount of waste in the system that we just aren't willing to give up. How much could be saved if we didn't expect that every McDonalds in the country could provide the exact same menu anytime, anywhere? Or if we stopping buying new cloths just to kill time? Or if we no longer had holiday traditions based entirely on consumerism of gifts that almost certainly weren't built to last and we didn't need in the first place? None of this has to be all or nothing, but it does require societies to tilt the scales on how highly we prioritize modern economics and convenience. We don't have to get rid of all use of oil, cars, gift giving, etc. We just need to decide that reducing our use as much as possible is worth the effort.
  - seiferteric 3y ago
    I don't mean to be rude, but are you aware that CO2 emissions continue to _increase_ year after year? That despite the world's apparent effort, we have actually made _no_ progress in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions globally? Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame?
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Our use of oil has also continued. We like to collectively talk about reduction but its incremental at best, and not enough to keep up with increased consumption elsewhere or actually meaningfully reduce anything. > Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame? In the context of this thread, there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. You're asking why I should expect that people can choose to make a meaningful reduction in consumption as an alternative to filling the atmosphere with theoretical solutions that have never been tested before and who's impacts are unknown. Are you proposing that because people don't care enough to reduce consumption we should just let the authorities in charge spray a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere and hope it works?

MandieD 3y ago

It was apparently intentionally-tainted cinnamon in apple sauce pouches, but confirms your point about the complexity of food supply chains making it more likely for bad stuff to get in: https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investigation-elevated-lead-chromium-levels-cinnamon-applesauce-pouches-november-2023 https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investi...

_heimdall 3y ago
Oh that's an important update I hadn't seen, thanks!

moffkalast 3y ago

Frankly it's not one or the other, it's both at the same time as much as possible because we're extremely late to this party.

_heimdall 3y ago
How do we control that? The medical industry has the challenge of having to intervene to a late stage illness with multiple interventions that must be titrated appropriately. They have the benefit of a much smaller scale though, and they've researched and learned from past cases. How do we intervene in the entire planet with multiple modes of change without making things worse? I reach for the solution of removing impact as much as possible mainly because it feels much safer. We can reduce our current level of impact and we're really just getting out of the planets way. There's plenty of risk with regards to human cost as we remove and simplify systems, but at least that's the impact falling more directly in the species that caused the problem in the first place.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Well there are risks of course, and it will most likely make things slightly worse for a while with less solar power and smaller crop yields with less sunlight, but there's really no other way to fix this mess. The simple fact is that removing all of our impact in terms of just stopping release of C02 and methane (as impossible that would be to achieve with our entire society built on energy dense fuels and entrenched interest in keeping it that way) would not be enough at this point. We are cumulatively increasing atmospheric energy retention while also reducing reflectivity and both of those are more or less permanent for a while. Safe or not we'll need to add more reflectivity to give the ecosystem time to recover. Carbon capture won't help in the short term either, the oceans have absorbed too much already and will start releasing it if atmospheric ppm falls below the absorbed density. To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    It sounds like we likely agree that there is some level of reduction that would work, but that unrealistic that people will be willing to go that far. Where we may be talking past each other a bit (sorry if I am) is the risk and reward of untested, theoretical solution that impact the entire planet. > To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs. While I agree here in theory, we know the general side effects and efficacy of chemotherapy. We also know the scale of impact when it doesn't work. We aren't so lucky with global interventions like releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. We only have theories of what may happen, but we're talking about the entire planet and everything on it. We don't know what the real effects will be, or as they say - we don't know what we don't know. As for Steve Jobs, I never really understood the idea of him as a cautionary tale. He knew what his diagnosis was, what treatments were available, and what would likely be the outcome. He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. I hope everyone is that lucky.

seiferteric 3y ago

This would take decades at least, we need something else in our back pocket in case millions start to die from heat exhaustion. Even if somehow we stop all CO2 emissions today, the earth will continue to warm for like a couple more centuries.

_heimdall 3y ago
What would take decades? Nearly every business switched to work from home in a matter of weeks because the fear of a pandemic gripped most politicians. Why couldn't we do that now to reduce our use of oil? The fact is we have a massive amount of waste in the system that we just aren't willing to give up. How much could be saved if we didn't expect that every McDonalds in the country could provide the exact same menu anytime, anywhere? Or if we stopping buying new cloths just to kill time? Or if we no longer had holiday traditions based entirely on consumerism of gifts that almost certainly weren't built to last and we didn't need in the first place? None of this has to be all or nothing, but it does require societies to tilt the scales on how highly we prioritize modern economics and convenience. We don't have to get rid of all use of oil, cars, gift giving, etc. We just need to decide that reducing our use as much as possible is worth the effort.
- seiferteric 3y ago
  I don't mean to be rude, but are you aware that CO2 emissions continue to _increase_ year after year? That despite the world's apparent effort, we have actually made _no_ progress in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions globally? Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame?
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Our use of oil has also continued. We like to collectively talk about reduction but its incremental at best, and not enough to keep up with increased consumption elsewhere or actually meaningfully reduce anything. > Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame? In the context of this thread, there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. You're asking why I should expect that people can choose to make a meaningful reduction in consumption as an alternative to filling the atmosphere with theoretical solutions that have never been tested before and who's impacts are unknown. Are you proposing that because people don't care enough to reduce consumption we should just let the authorities in charge spray a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere and hope it works?