6 ms·

Not even close. https://jonathanfranzen.com/what-if-we-stopped-pretending/ https://jonathanfranzen.com/what-if-we-stopped-pretending/

simpaticoder 2y ago
On the bright side for those that have always wanted to travel to other worlds and terraform them, we'll now have an opportunity to have that experience without the travel.
redserk 2y ago
The article was written in 2019 before a number of extraordinarily significant events with major climate policy impacts: - a noticeable and rapid dip in emissions has proven to be viable due to COVID lockdowns - Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced Europe and the US to accelerate plans to diversify energy generation away from natural gas - China’s insanely rapid growth in green energy production domestically It seems like 2022 CO2 levels are near 2019 CO2 levels[1], which is impressive. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
- colordrops 2y ago
  Ok, but weren't 2019 levels really bad? These are nice developments but really tiny in comparison to what needs to be done to stop progression.
- graeme 2y ago
  2023 is 37.4, which is a fair increase on 2019. More importantly the chart that matters is total CO2 in atmosphere. You can't even see 2020 on here. That was a one off 5% decrease. Imagine if you had $1,000,0000 in your bank account and were spending $100,000 per year, except one year you spent $95,000. That's 2020. This methane news is on top of CO2 as it has its own added impact. Proper optimism that we can do it first requires taking stock of where we actually are. So far we haven't actually displaced any carbon energy and we are at the all time highest levels of both annually emissions and also CO2 in the atmosphere. Chart of total CO2 concentration over time: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    Cleared that shit up.
  - czbond 2y ago
    Interesting - thanks for the CO2 concentration link. I am curious what prior to 2019 looked like (eg: if it was a comparable size, yet dipped in 2019-2021) and is back to normal.
    - graeme 2y ago
      Have a look at the right hand chart. That shows the increase from 1960 until now. You couldn't spot 2020 by eyeballing the chart. 2020 was a 5% dip in the pace of the increase. It's like someone gained ten pounds in 2019, 9.5 pounds in 2020, and 10 pounds in 2021. CO2 emissions are analogous to a total gain, so a 5% one off cut isn't very meaningful.
  - elbasti 2y ago
    > Imagine if you had $1,000,0000 in your bank account and were spending $100,000 per year, except one year you spent $95,000. That's 2020. It's even worse, because there's positive feedback loops we've probably unlocked (mainly artic and tropical methane). So it's more like every year you put $100K on a credit card with high interest rate with continually compounding interest.* Even if we stopped spending tomorrow, the debt will continue to grow exponentially. *And the card is owned by a mob boss that will blow your brains out when your debt exceeds your bank balance.
- bagels 2y ago
  Viable? Effective at reducing emissions, but is stopping all industrial output viable?
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Depends on your appetite for making the money sad.
    - bagels 2y ago
      I have no idea about how to measure the happiness of money.
      - forgetfreeman 2y ago
        One handy metric would be GDP vs wages. Another would be volume of CIA counter-insurgency ops globally.
- potsandpans 2y ago
  This data is good for cognitive behavioral therapy and not much else. In that, the world is certainly not going to end, and maybe it's helpful to look at some data that trends positive in order to inspire hope. But we are committed now to living in a world that will be radically different and less pleasant for a lot of people. How fast these trends improve will determine the scope and magnitude of degraded pleasentness. Regardless of any change, more extreme weather events more frequently will become more normal. The socioeconomic impacts that are likely to be the most jarring in the global north will probably surface from migration pressure as people from the global south are displaced due to heat and sea level rise. It is optimistic to think that we'll be on track for 2 degrees of warming, let alone 1.5. At this point, the quiet part just starting to be said out loud is that we'll never hit 1.5. We'll probably never achieve any semblance of the paris agreement goals. And even as we approach 2 degrees, 2050 looks hotter and more extreme than anything humans have ever experienced in the past. Probably one of the only short term options between now and 2100 will be solar radiation management -- a largely untested tech that is surely a terrible outcome. I'm just summarizing the latest IPCC synthesis report [1]. Adding a bit of editorialization in perceived outcomes. One of the most conservative organizations on earth, their assessment is bleak: systems are already permanently damaged, and they're likely to become more so in the near-to-distant future. My goal is not to make anyone reading despondent. I just think these kind of short snipes of perceived positive trends bury the reality of the situation that we are living through. If the goal is to assure us that the world's not going to end, it's quite a low bar to set. And there's quite a gradient of suffering between. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > But we are committed now to living in a world that will be radically different and less pleasant for a lot of people. Committed? We will have extra energy for carbon capture on the next decade. This is a problem we can solve. Not before it gets worse, but we can stop it from being permanent.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Great, now we need viable large scale carbon capture technology and enough loose funds to bribe an industry into existence globally. That 2nd part is the real trick.
- MrVandemar 2y ago
  And yet, do you know when the hottest month on record was? It's easy to answer: last month. It's been "last month" for the last 12 months at least. Basically, we've hit the J curve. The "extraordinarily significant events" you cite amount to little more than a guy who jumped off a bridge thinking: "you know, I think I've changed my mind". (And yet, we just bought $700 of seedlings and I spent my birthday, and many other days planting them. It's not a pointless exercise, it will improve things in my little corner, but it won't materially affect anything either).
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    On the bright side, at least the CO2 and warmer weather will help the seedlings grow. "Greenhouse" effect and all that.
  - redserk 2y ago
    And yet, this is baked into climate change models if you’ve been paying attention. Unfortunately, yes, even after we hit a plateau of emissions, we’re going to see effects. The important bit is that, yes, we are seeing changes, and yes, we are seeing dreadful environment effects, we’re making progress to slow this down. We’re fortunate that the last few years gave us excuses to shift policy that otherwise would’ve had us keep going down this path for another decade+. I would certainly hope those pushing the “doomerism” takes in this thread do not work for any AI companies, cloud computing, NVIDIA, or other organization responsible for insane datacenter power growth this past year.
- geysersam 2y ago
  If anything the Russian invasion of Ukraine diverted attention away from climate change to defence. Look at how many countries in Europe took the opportunity to cut climate progressive policies to reduce fuel prices during the price crunch after the invasion. The prices were temporarily inflated, and affected groups could have been supported by other means, but instead green policies were targeted and you bet they will not be re-introduced any time soon.
- itronitron 2y ago
  >> a noticeable and rapid dip in emissions has proven to be viable due to COVID lockdowns funny how that never gets brought up in articles about RTO mandates
- blueflow 2y ago
  The emissions, not the level. The level is increasing at the level of emissions (minus absorptions). We are accelerating as fast as 2019 towards the wall.

simpaticoder 2y ago

On the bright side for those that have always wanted to travel to other worlds and terraform them, we'll now have an opportunity to have that experience without the travel.

redserk 2y ago

The article was written in 2019 before a number of extraordinarily significant events with major climate policy impacts: - a noticeable and rapid dip in emissions has proven to be viable due to COVID lockdowns - Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced Europe and the US to accelerate plans to diversify energy generation away from natural gas - China’s insanely rapid growth in green energy production domestically It seems like 2022 CO2 levels are near 2019 CO2 levels[1], which is impressive. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

colordrops 2y ago
Ok, but weren't 2019 levels really bad? These are nice developments but really tiny in comparison to what needs to be done to stop progression.
graeme 2y ago
2023 is 37.4, which is a fair increase on 2019. More importantly the chart that matters is total CO2 in atmosphere. You can't even see 2020 on here. That was a one off 5% decrease. Imagine if you had $1,000,0000 in your bank account and were spending $100,000 per year, except one year you spent $95,000. That's 2020. This methane news is on top of CO2 as it has its own added impact. Proper optimism that we can do it first requires taking stock of where we actually are. So far we haven't actually displaced any carbon energy and we are at the all time highest levels of both annually emissions and also CO2 in the atmosphere. Chart of total CO2 concentration over time: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Cleared that shit up.
- czbond 2y ago
  Interesting - thanks for the CO2 concentration link. I am curious what prior to 2019 looked like (eg: if it was a comparable size, yet dipped in 2019-2021) and is back to normal.
  - graeme 2y ago
    Have a look at the right hand chart. That shows the increase from 1960 until now. You couldn't spot 2020 by eyeballing the chart. 2020 was a 5% dip in the pace of the increase. It's like someone gained ten pounds in 2019, 9.5 pounds in 2020, and 10 pounds in 2021. CO2 emissions are analogous to a total gain, so a 5% one off cut isn't very meaningful.
- elbasti 2y ago
  > Imagine if you had $1,000,0000 in your bank account and were spending $100,000 per year, except one year you spent $95,000. That's 2020. It's even worse, because there's positive feedback loops we've probably unlocked (mainly artic and tropical methane). So it's more like every year you put $100K on a credit card with high interest rate with continually compounding interest.* Even if we stopped spending tomorrow, the debt will continue to grow exponentially. *And the card is owned by a mob boss that will blow your brains out when your debt exceeds your bank balance.
bagels 2y ago
Viable? Effective at reducing emissions, but is stopping all industrial output viable?
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Depends on your appetite for making the money sad.
  - bagels 2y ago
    I have no idea about how to measure the happiness of money.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      One handy metric would be GDP vs wages. Another would be volume of CIA counter-insurgency ops globally.
potsandpans 2y ago
This data is good for cognitive behavioral therapy and not much else. In that, the world is certainly not going to end, and maybe it's helpful to look at some data that trends positive in order to inspire hope. But we are committed now to living in a world that will be radically different and less pleasant for a lot of people. How fast these trends improve will determine the scope and magnitude of degraded pleasentness. Regardless of any change, more extreme weather events more frequently will become more normal. The socioeconomic impacts that are likely to be the most jarring in the global north will probably surface from migration pressure as people from the global south are displaced due to heat and sea level rise. It is optimistic to think that we'll be on track for 2 degrees of warming, let alone 1.5. At this point, the quiet part just starting to be said out loud is that we'll never hit 1.5. We'll probably never achieve any semblance of the paris agreement goals. And even as we approach 2 degrees, 2050 looks hotter and more extreme than anything humans have ever experienced in the past. Probably one of the only short term options between now and 2100 will be solar radiation management -- a largely untested tech that is surely a terrible outcome. I'm just summarizing the latest IPCC synthesis report [1]. Adding a bit of editorialization in perceived outcomes. One of the most conservative organizations on earth, their assessment is bleak: systems are already permanently damaged, and they're likely to become more so in the near-to-distant future. My goal is not to make anyone reading despondent. I just think these kind of short snipes of perceived positive trends bury the reality of the situation that we are living through. If the goal is to assure us that the world's not going to end, it's quite a low bar to set. And there's quite a gradient of suffering between. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > But we are committed now to living in a world that will be radically different and less pleasant for a lot of people. Committed? We will have extra energy for carbon capture on the next decade. This is a problem we can solve. Not before it gets worse, but we can stop it from being permanent.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Great, now we need viable large scale carbon capture technology and enough loose funds to bribe an industry into existence globally. That 2nd part is the real trick.
MrVandemar 2y ago
And yet, do you know when the hottest month on record was? It's easy to answer: last month. It's been "last month" for the last 12 months at least. Basically, we've hit the J curve. The "extraordinarily significant events" you cite amount to little more than a guy who jumped off a bridge thinking: "you know, I think I've changed my mind". (And yet, we just bought $700 of seedlings and I spent my birthday, and many other days planting them. It's not a pointless exercise, it will improve things in my little corner, but it won't materially affect anything either).
- HPsquared 2y ago
  On the bright side, at least the CO2 and warmer weather will help the seedlings grow. "Greenhouse" effect and all that.
- redserk 2y ago
  And yet, this is baked into climate change models if you’ve been paying attention. Unfortunately, yes, even after we hit a plateau of emissions, we’re going to see effects. The important bit is that, yes, we are seeing changes, and yes, we are seeing dreadful environment effects, we’re making progress to slow this down. We’re fortunate that the last few years gave us excuses to shift policy that otherwise would’ve had us keep going down this path for another decade+. I would certainly hope those pushing the “doomerism” takes in this thread do not work for any AI companies, cloud computing, NVIDIA, or other organization responsible for insane datacenter power growth this past year.
geysersam 2y ago
If anything the Russian invasion of Ukraine diverted attention away from climate change to defence. Look at how many countries in Europe took the opportunity to cut climate progressive policies to reduce fuel prices during the price crunch after the invasion. The prices were temporarily inflated, and affected groups could have been supported by other means, but instead green policies were targeted and you bet they will not be re-introduced any time soon.
itronitron 2y ago
>> a noticeable and rapid dip in emissions has proven to be viable due to COVID lockdowns funny how that never gets brought up in articles about RTO mandates
blueflow 2y ago
The emissions, not the level. The level is increasing at the level of emissions (minus absorptions). We are accelerating as fast as 2019 towards the wall.