3 ms·

> Basically: Climate doomerism is a problem, yes. But climate change is also a problem, one that our power structures seem completely unwilling to address. And

by creato 3y ago

> Basically: Climate doomerism is a problem, yes. But climate change is also a problem, one that our power structures seem completely unwilling to address. And in such an environment, Climate doomerism is kind of a logical outcome: we know there's an issue, scientists have known since the 70's, yet we do precious little about it and fundamentally our leaders seem content to ride out the collapse of the biosphere and cash their checks. Of course that's fucking depressing. You seem to be exhibiting the exact symptom you are complaining about. I fully accept that climate change exists and is human caused, and will cause serious problems in the future. Where I differ from you (probably) is that I think cutting emissions to a useful degree will also cause serious problems. Maybe even worse problems. Both problems have the real potential to cause total war across the globe, not seen since WWII. Many people think we're already in the early stages of WWIII, and a big part of that is basically due to an utterly trivial minor disruption in the politics/trade of fossil fuels when compared to what is required by mitigating climate change via emissions reductions. My view is obviously no less doomer-ish I suppose, but, in your view, the problem is "people suck", "politicians suck", etc., and I think that makes people cynical and resentful of other people, politically unstable in general.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I don't think people suck at all, politicians do suck though. Numerous ones are clearly on the direct payroll of fossil fuel companies. And I mean, you're basically conceding then that the doomerism has merit, even if we might disagree on the specifics of why. Then why judge these kids for being depressed? Irrespective of what you decide to park as the "real cause" of the problems, the problems remain and the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Nobody is judging kids for being depressed! > the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it This is where I think the whole doomerism project goes astray. It seems to only notice difficulties and challenges and never pay even a tiny bit of lip service to the flip side of the coin. Surely "the power structure" must include the executive administration and a majority of the members of both houses of the last US Congress? Those people coordinated the passage of a hugely beneficial package of mostly carrots but also some sticks targeted directly at this problem. The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late", but that is letting perfect be the enemy of good. People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies, and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward. It's a way more exciting time to be involved in solving this problem than it has ever been, certainly in my adult life and I'd say ever. But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is, but I struggle to believe it has nothing to do with social media echo chambers.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late", We're on track to not only surpass but pretty much blow away projections for CO2 emissions that will all but guarantee multiple degrees of heat gain over the next several decades, and all that entails: more super-storms, higher ocean levels, and a LOT more death in the developing world around the equator. That is definitionally too little too late. This isn't pessimism: scientists knew what we needed to do, and we have utterly failed to do it. If your car was in an accident and couldn't be legally driven, and you requested your mechanic replace the control arms and called it job done, you'd rightly be called fucking insane. That's not letting perfect be the enemy of good, that's not doing what you need to do. > People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies A ton of these technologies are greenwashing existing tech because there's federal grants to be had for attempting it. Others, like widely available solar, are complicated by the purveyors taking advantage of low-earners who've managed to get homes and fucking them into bankruptcy by adding money to their mortgage they can't possibly afford. Still others are things like EV's, which while better for the environment at point of use, are still highly damaging what with the incredible amounts of limited heavy metals required to build them, not to mention being shipped back and forth over the oceans because it's cheaper to build everything in Asia. And all of this is because things are done in our economy to make money and ONLY to make money, not to make the world better. > and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward. You must be joking. The reactionaries are having a FIELD DAY with 15 minute cities, bug eating, what have you. And yes it's incredibly stupid shit utterly beneath engaging with, but it doesn't change the fact that tons of people believe it and parrot it. > But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is Probably something to do with the fact that this discourse has been happening for half a century now and we're producing more CO2 than EVER and burning the rainforest down.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Your car analogy is not very good. First of all, the car is not un-driveable yet. It has a ton of clear and worsening mechanical deficiencies that are hindering it, but it's still running. Secondly, we can't take it to the mechanic, we have to fix it while it's in motion. Also, there wasn't an accident, a single clear moment where it went from pristine to hopelessly damaged, it has been developing these mechanical issues gradually over a long period of time; they were predictable (and predicted), but accumulating slowly at first and then accelerating more recently. So a bunch of people are now hanging out the windows and strapped to the undercarriage trying to fix the thing while it's rolling, and a bunch of other people are sitting in the back seat typing on their phones about how there is no problem, or about what we coulda woulda shoulda done, or about how the people working on the fixes are doing the wrong things, or about how we should just crash the car and get it over with. And that's all fine, people can make their own choices, but I'd rather be trying to figure out how to be one of the people working on fixing the cracks, rather than just being along for the ride. > That is definitionally too little too late. Note that I didn't actually say it isn't too little too late. But this is exactly how "perfect is the enemy of good" works. "Good" is never good enough, but it's still good. I agree with you that it's too little and too late to avoid a whole slew of bad things like the ones you listed, and probably worse. But I don't think it's too late to avoid the existential risks to the species. I do think it's too little, but its success makes me more, rather than less, optimistic about more efforts to come. And I get it, you'll think, "oh great, so all these horrible things will happen, and now we want to pat ourselves on the back just because we may be on the path to avoid wiping out the whole species?". And yes, that is the way in which it is good, despite not being good enough. > A ton of these technologies are greenwashing existing tech because there's federal grants to be had for attempting it. Which things are "greenwashing", in your view? It is indeed mostly targeted at existing technologies, because we already have really good technologies, which if deployed far more widely will already go a very long way toward solving the problem. This is a very good thing! We do need to invent more things, but that's not the bottleneck yet, the current bottleneck is deployment of things we've already invented. > Others, like widely available solar, are complicated by the purveyors taking advantage of low-earners who've managed to get homes and fucking them into bankruptcy by adding money to their mortgage they can't possibly afford. Residential roof-top solar is indeed not the thing to be excited about with respect to solar deployment, which is why it is not a major focus of the provisions in the IRA. > Still others are things like EV's, which while better for the environment at point of use, are still highly damaging what with the incredible amounts of limited heavy metals required to build them, ... The metals thing is not a non-issue, but is also wildly overblown. Importantly, EVs do not burn those metals; they are akin to the fuel tank, not the fuel. This is an advantage that is not ignored, exactly, but is often underrated. > not to mention being shipped back and forth over the oceans because it's cheaper to build everything in Asia. The IRA included provisions aimed at localizing material sourcing and manufacturing. Again, if your argument is that this isn't good enough, then I agree, but if your argument is that "the power structure" has done nothing about the issues you're worried about, then I don't agree. > You must be joking. The reactionaries are having a FIELD DAY with 15 minute cities, bug eating, what have you. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you weren't around for it, it might be enlightening for you to read about the backlash to the ACA (Obamacare). That is what a political backlash looks like. A fringe of reactionaries throwing silly pot-shots online is not a political backlash. There have been no mass protests calling for a repeal of the IRA because of its climate provisions. The opposition nominee for the presidency is not making this a center-piece of his campaign. Sure, there are some targeted things that they intend to undo or roll back, but it is not a major part of anyone's campaign rhetoric. This is, truly, as good as it gets for a major piece of legislation. Nobody is particularly pissed about it, and the vast majority of its provisions are going to stand, regardless of who wins the next election. That is a very successful political outcome! Resist the urge to overindex on noisy edgelords online. > Probably something to do with the fact that this discourse has been happening for half a century now and we're producing more CO2 than EVER and burning the rainforest down. No, we have not been having this discourse for half a century. The discussion has shifted massively just over the decade and a half of my career, due in no small part to the massive shifts in the solutions we have to bring to bear on the problem. Cynicism and nihilism are not the right conclusions to draw from the history of humanity working on this problem. The right conclusion is that progress can be made, and is being made more quickly now than at any point thus far, and continues to accelerate. Thank goodness!

by creato 3y ago

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I don't think people suck at all, politicians do suck though. Numerous ones are clearly on the direct payroll of fossil fuel companies. And I mean, you're basically conceding then that the doomerism has merit, even if we might disagree on the specifics of why. Then why judge these kids for being depressed? Irrespective of what you decide to park as the "real cause" of the problems, the problems remain and the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it.

sanderjd 3y ago
Nobody is judging kids for being depressed! > the power structure is either refusing to or is incapable of solving it This is where I think the whole doomerism project goes astray. It seems to only notice difficulties and challenges and never pay even a tiny bit of lip service to the flip side of the coin. Surely "the power structure" must include the executive administration and a majority of the members of both houses of the last US Congress? Those people coordinated the passage of a hugely beneficial package of mostly carrots but also some sticks targeted directly at this problem. The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late", but that is letting perfect be the enemy of good. People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies, and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward. It's a way more exciting time to be involved in solving this problem than it has ever been, certainly in my adult life and I'd say ever. But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is, but I struggle to believe it has nothing to do with social media echo chambers.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late", We're on track to not only surpass but pretty much blow away projections for CO2 emissions that will all but guarantee multiple degrees of heat gain over the next several decades, and all that entails: more super-storms, higher ocean levels, and a LOT more death in the developing world around the equator. That is definitionally too little too late. This isn't pessimism: scientists knew what we needed to do, and we have utterly failed to do it. If your car was in an accident and couldn't be legally driven, and you requested your mechanic replace the control arms and called it job done, you'd rightly be called fucking insane. That's not letting perfect be the enemy of good, that's not doing what you need to do. > People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies A ton of these technologies are greenwashing existing tech because there's federal grants to be had for attempting it. Others, like widely available solar, are complicated by the purveyors taking advantage of low-earners who've managed to get homes and fucking them into bankruptcy by adding money to their mortgage they can't possibly afford. Still others are things like EV's, which while better for the environment at point of use, are still highly damaging what with the incredible amounts of limited heavy metals required to build them, not to mention being shipped back and forth over the oceans because it's cheaper to build everything in Asia. And all of this is because things are done in our economy to make money and ONLY to make money, not to make the world better. > and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward. You must be joking. The reactionaries are having a FIELD DAY with 15 minute cities, bug eating, what have you. And yes it's incredibly stupid shit utterly beneath engaging with, but it doesn't change the fact that tons of people believe it and parrot it. > But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is Probably something to do with the fact that this discourse has been happening for half a century now and we're producing more CO2 than EVER and burning the rainforest down.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Your car analogy is not very good. First of all, the car is not un-driveable yet. It has a ton of clear and worsening mechanical deficiencies that are hindering it, but it's still running. Secondly, we can't take it to the mechanic, we have to fix it while it's in motion. Also, there wasn't an accident, a single clear moment where it went from pristine to hopelessly damaged, it has been developing these mechanical issues gradually over a long period of time; they were predictable (and predicted), but accumulating slowly at first and then accelerating more recently. So a bunch of people are now hanging out the windows and strapped to the undercarriage trying to fix the thing while it's rolling, and a bunch of other people are sitting in the back seat typing on their phones about how there is no problem, or about what we coulda woulda shoulda done, or about how the people working on the fixes are doing the wrong things, or about how we should just crash the car and get it over with. And that's all fine, people can make their own choices, but I'd rather be trying to figure out how to be one of the people working on fixing the cracks, rather than just being along for the ride. > That is definitionally too little too late. Note that I didn't actually say it isn't too little too late. But this is exactly how "perfect is the enemy of good" works. "Good" is never good enough, but it's still good. I agree with you that it's too little and too late to avoid a whole slew of bad things like the ones you listed, and probably worse. But I don't think it's too late to avoid the existential risks to the species. I do think it's too little, but its success makes me more, rather than less, optimistic about more efforts to come. And I get it, you'll think, "oh great, so all these horrible things will happen, and now we want to pat ourselves on the back just because we may be on the path to avoid wiping out the whole species?". And yes, that is the way in which it is good, despite not being good enough. > A ton of these technologies are greenwashing existing tech because there's federal grants to be had for attempting it. Which things are "greenwashing", in your view? It is indeed mostly targeted at existing technologies, because we already have really good technologies, which if deployed far more widely will already go a very long way toward solving the problem. This is a very good thing! We do need to invent more things, but that's not the bottleneck yet, the current bottleneck is deployment of things we've already invented. > Others, like widely available solar, are complicated by the purveyors taking advantage of low-earners who've managed to get homes and fucking them into bankruptcy by adding money to their mortgage they can't possibly afford. Residential roof-top solar is indeed not the thing to be excited about with respect to solar deployment, which is why it is not a major focus of the provisions in the IRA. > Still others are things like EV's, which while better for the environment at point of use, are still highly damaging what with the incredible amounts of limited heavy metals required to build them, ... The metals thing is not a non-issue, but is also wildly overblown. Importantly, EVs do not burn those metals; they are akin to the fuel tank, not the fuel. This is an advantage that is not ignored, exactly, but is often underrated. > not to mention being shipped back and forth over the oceans because it's cheaper to build everything in Asia. The IRA included provisions aimed at localizing material sourcing and manufacturing. Again, if your argument is that this isn't good enough, then I agree, but if your argument is that "the power structure" has done nothing about the issues you're worried about, then I don't agree. > You must be joking. The reactionaries are having a FIELD DAY with 15 minute cities, bug eating, what have you. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you weren't around for it, it might be enlightening for you to read about the backlash to the ACA (Obamacare). That is what a political backlash looks like. A fringe of reactionaries throwing silly pot-shots online is not a political backlash. There have been no mass protests calling for a repeal of the IRA because of its climate provisions. The opposition nominee for the presidency is not making this a center-piece of his campaign. Sure, there are some targeted things that they intend to undo or roll back, but it is not a major part of anyone's campaign rhetoric. This is, truly, as good as it gets for a major piece of legislation. Nobody is particularly pissed about it, and the vast majority of its provisions are going to stand, regardless of who wins the next election. That is a very successful political outcome! Resist the urge to overindex on noisy edgelords online. > Probably something to do with the fact that this discourse has been happening for half a century now and we're producing more CO2 than EVER and burning the rainforest down. No, we have not been having this discourse for half a century. The discussion has shifted massively just over the decade and a half of my career, due in no small part to the massive shifts in the solutions we have to bring to bear on the problem. Cynicism and nihilism are not the right conclusions to draw from the history of humanity working on this problem. The right conclusion is that progress can be made, and is being made more quickly now than at any point thus far, and continues to accelerate. Thank goodness!