3 ms·

Positive on the one hand, stupid it took us this long on the other.

defrost 2y ago
It's worth looking back at 50 years of fossil fuel producers going into overdrive on casting FUD on harmful effects of CO2 since it was first raised at the UN in the 1970s.
- hackerlight 2y ago
  To clarify the article. This isn't peak CO2. It isn't even peak pollution. It's peak first derivative of pollution ex. greenhouse gases. We'll get to peak CO2 when emissions of CO2 are net zero, so in a few decades at best. Until then atmospheric carbon and average temperatures will keep rising.
  - defrost 2y ago
    IIRC I had to do some of that calculus stuff before cutting loose on writing upwards and downwards magnetic field continuations for geophysical exploration software suites, so, yep, cheers for that. That aside, fifty years ago was when the dangers of increasing atmospheric insulation was raised as a serious potential issue in the UN, and fifty years ago was when the think tank ecology surrounding fossil fuel producers started churning articles on ice ages, Climate, who really knows?, killing public transport initiatives, etc. Hindsight is famously 20|20 but it serves us well to remember past playbooks; it wasn't just pure stupidty, there were people who knew better actively promoting larger cars and greater per capita consumption rather than looking to lower total emissions.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      Speaking of pure stupidity, I definately sometimes am. That said, even when there's evidently plenty of malice around, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that enough cooperators can figure out how to coordinate despite all the damned defectors!
ajross 2y ago
Silent Spring was published just 61 years ago (and on top of that into a world with less than half its current population!). Seems like we did pretty well, to me.
MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago
Posted from a huge house with air conditioning while using multiple petroleum products (iPhone/computer, chair, desk, fleece, etc). The pollution lifted every single person’s standard of living across the globe to levels unimaginable 100 years ago. It’s easy to be in Seattle or New York and say we gotta stop burning oil and coal but there are trade offs that were worth making. If you live in a developing country without aircon those trade offs are still worth making.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Every single person? Not exactly. What about farmers forced off their land for corporate interests? What about people working in the garbage dumps of Tijuana in Mexico [1]? I've actually lived in the "first world" (born there) and now have lived over a year in a developing country where most people (including myself) don't have "aircon", and whether technology has improved things is not as clearcut as you might think. Yes, we have better health care and more products, but we also have more pollution, more meaningless jobs, weaker local communities (especially in the most developed parts of the world), and beautiful species are going extinct. Actually, I think the standard of living, at least in the long-term and for the many future climate refugees, is not actually that much improved. [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-25-mn-4650-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-25-mn-4650-s...
  - knowaveragejoe 2y ago
    > Actually, I think the standard of living, at least in the long-term and for the many future climate refugees, is not actually that much improved. This is basically pure anecdote.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      Tell that to the people in Mato Gross do Sul now who don't even have running water now because of the extreme weather events caused by technology. Just an anecdote, I guess.

It's worth looking back at 50 years of fossil fuel producers going into overdrive on casting FUD on harmful effects of CO2 since it was first raised at the UN in the 1970s.

hackerlight 2y ago
To clarify the article. This isn't peak CO2. It isn't even peak pollution. It's peak first derivative of pollution ex. greenhouse gases. We'll get to peak CO2 when emissions of CO2 are net zero, so in a few decades at best. Until then atmospheric carbon and average temperatures will keep rising.
- defrost 2y ago
  IIRC I had to do some of that calculus stuff before cutting loose on writing upwards and downwards magnetic field continuations for geophysical exploration software suites, so, yep, cheers for that. That aside, fifty years ago was when the dangers of increasing atmospheric insulation was raised as a serious potential issue in the UN, and fifty years ago was when the think tank ecology surrounding fossil fuel producers started churning articles on ice ages, Climate, who really knows?, killing public transport initiatives, etc. Hindsight is famously 20|20 but it serves us well to remember past playbooks; it wasn't just pure stupidty, there were people who knew better actively promoting larger cars and greater per capita consumption rather than looking to lower total emissions.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Speaking of pure stupidity, I definately sometimes am. That said, even when there's evidently plenty of malice around, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that enough cooperators can figure out how to coordinate despite all the damned defectors!

ajross 2y ago

Silent Spring was published just 61 years ago (and on top of that into a world with less than half its current population!). Seems like we did pretty well, to me.

MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago

Posted from a huge house with air conditioning while using multiple petroleum products (iPhone/computer, chair, desk, fleece, etc). The pollution lifted every single person’s standard of living across the globe to levels unimaginable 100 years ago. It’s easy to be in Seattle or New York and say we gotta stop burning oil and coal but there are trade offs that were worth making. If you live in a developing country without aircon those trade offs are still worth making.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Every single person? Not exactly. What about farmers forced off their land for corporate interests? What about people working in the garbage dumps of Tijuana in Mexico [1]? I've actually lived in the "first world" (born there) and now have lived over a year in a developing country where most people (including myself) don't have "aircon", and whether technology has improved things is not as clearcut as you might think. Yes, we have better health care and more products, but we also have more pollution, more meaningless jobs, weaker local communities (especially in the most developed parts of the world), and beautiful species are going extinct. Actually, I think the standard of living, at least in the long-term and for the many future climate refugees, is not actually that much improved. [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-25-mn-4650-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-25-mn-4650-s...
- knowaveragejoe 2y ago
  > Actually, I think the standard of living, at least in the long-term and for the many future climate refugees, is not actually that much improved. This is basically pure anecdote.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Tell that to the people in Mato Gross do Sul now who don't even have running water now because of the extreme weather events caused by technology. Just an anecdote, I guess.