4 ms·

I can understand how that might sound nonsensical. Here's where a simple thought experiment might help understand the difference. To clarify, we should note t

I can understand how that might sound nonsensical. Here's where a simple thought experiment might help understand the difference. To clarify, we should note that I have never --ever-- in my many comments on this subject denied the genesis of the problem. It is clear as day that we contributed a massive amount of CO2 and other gasses to the atmosphere. Let's get that out of the way. This isn't about denial of that fact. Thought experiment: Take an warehouse the size of a Home Depot (approximately 10K square meters or 100K square feet). Seal it. Nothing new comes in or goes out. Air, water, nothing. Make a 1 cubic meter pile of wood in the center of it and light it on fire. Let it burn out. Your job, now, is to clean it. The energy content of 1 cubic meter of wood is in the order of 3 MWh. How much energy will it take to clean 100% of the gasses and particulate matter generated by the burn and deposited on every square millimeter of this warehouse? Of course, this question is impossible to answer, other than to suggest it will take a lot more than the energy expended to create the problem in the first place. This is a basic principle in physics. Right? You cannot use less energy to reverse a process. Another way to describe this principle is that it is far easier to cause destruction than it is to reverse it. It is much easier to implode a building in Las Vegas than to clean it up and build a new one. Etc. Humanity burned fossil fuels with incredible energy content per cubic meter. Massive, unthinkable amounts. This is how we caused change. And it will take massively more energy to reverse these changes. And to do so quickly, it will take POWER. Massive amounts of it. Energy is power over time. It is easy to talk about energy and lose sight of this. Cleaning that warehouse to reverse the effects of the burn will take orders of magnitude more time than what it took to burn a cubic meter of wood. And so, my argument is not at all misaligned with reality. Yes, we did this in a very short period of time. And yet, no, we cannot and will not fix it in anything even remotely resembling a human lifetime no matter what we do. If humanity ceases to exist it will require 50K to 100K years per 100 ppm drop. If we still exist, even if we implement the most draconian of changes, nothing will change. Not one bit. In fact, it is far more likely that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise. It would be far more intelligent to understand this and work on how to live in this reality. The planet will take care of itself. And no, humanity isn't going to die off any time soon unless we start launching nukes across continents.

corford 2y ago
Fair enough, but how is your argument incompatible with transitioning away from fossil fuels and bringing in more environmentally aware regulations? It might not clean/reverse the damage already done but surely it helps to reduce the magnitude of future damage?
- robomartin 2y ago
  It isn't. Please note the last paragraph of my much-maligned post: "There are legitimate and worthy reasons for which we should clean up our act. Climate change and saving the planet just happen not to be among them. Because it is impossible without violating the rules of physics." As for reducing the magnitude of, as you put it, future damage, I very much doubt this is possible as well. Loose quote from a research paper released by Google many years ago: Even if we were to deploy the most optimal forms of renewable and clean energy sources at a global scale, not only will this not reverse the problem, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. Part of our reality is inescapable. For example, massive forest fires drive more CO2 into the atmosphere than lots of human activity. Around the world, there are fires in mines that have been burning for centuries (google it, you'll be surprised). Etc. We are kidding ourselves if we think that a bunch of measures that are but rounding errors at a planetary scale will have any impact at all in, as I like to put it, anything even remotely resembling a human time scale. There are things we can do (and probably should do) that I think are likely to make for better and cleaner life all around without the fantasy of saving the planet or reversing climate. One example of this is to seriously address the massive pollution created by container ships travelling our oceans every day. These ships burn bunker fuel, perhaps the worst thing one could burn. The stuff is horrible and the pollution it creates goes far beyond just CO2. I also learned that they contribute to something called "species pollution". They ingest all sorts of marine life into the ballast tanks at port A and pump it out at port B, transporting species clear across the planet, where they can and have done serious damage. How to address container ships is a subject that requires serious discussion. It's a complex multivariate problem. Would all-electric ships be better? Massive hydrofoils (for more efficient transport)? Wind has been tried, it isn't as much help as one might think. Another optimization vector would be to eliminate them by distributing the production of material goods closer to their points of consumption. In other words, eliminate container ships (unlikely) or reduce the fleet by only transporting materials that cannot be sourced at the point of manufacture. Again, these are complex problems. Their resolution, as a first step, requires leaving fantasy-land to then be able to discuss, evaluate and address reality. Only then will we we able to improve life, clean-up our act and live better. The value in these three desirable outcomes is self-evident to the point that they do not need to be justified by some fantastical imaginary doomsday scenario where all life on earth ceases to exist in, as some politicians have suggested, a dozen years. I am all for being far better about how we behave on this planet. My problem is with creating a religion out of fantasies. Reality does not care about these things and keeps moving forward. It's almost like like stock market.

corford 2y ago

Fair enough, but how is your argument incompatible with transitioning away from fossil fuels and bringing in more environmentally aware regulations? It might not clean/reverse the damage already done but surely it helps to reduce the magnitude of future damage?

robomartin 2y ago
It isn't. Please note the last paragraph of my much-maligned post: "There are legitimate and worthy reasons for which we should clean up our act. Climate change and saving the planet just happen not to be among them. Because it is impossible without violating the rules of physics." As for reducing the magnitude of, as you put it, future damage, I very much doubt this is possible as well. Loose quote from a research paper released by Google many years ago: Even if we were to deploy the most optimal forms of renewable and clean energy sources at a global scale, not only will this not reverse the problem, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. Part of our reality is inescapable. For example, massive forest fires drive more CO2 into the atmosphere than lots of human activity. Around the world, there are fires in mines that have been burning for centuries (google it, you'll be surprised). Etc. We are kidding ourselves if we think that a bunch of measures that are but rounding errors at a planetary scale will have any impact at all in, as I like to put it, anything even remotely resembling a human time scale. There are things we can do (and probably should do) that I think are likely to make for better and cleaner life all around without the fantasy of saving the planet or reversing climate. One example of this is to seriously address the massive pollution created by container ships travelling our oceans every day. These ships burn bunker fuel, perhaps the worst thing one could burn. The stuff is horrible and the pollution it creates goes far beyond just CO2. I also learned that they contribute to something called "species pollution". They ingest all sorts of marine life into the ballast tanks at port A and pump it out at port B, transporting species clear across the planet, where they can and have done serious damage. How to address container ships is a subject that requires serious discussion. It's a complex multivariate problem. Would all-electric ships be better? Massive hydrofoils (for more efficient transport)? Wind has been tried, it isn't as much help as one might think. Another optimization vector would be to eliminate them by distributing the production of material goods closer to their points of consumption. In other words, eliminate container ships (unlikely) or reduce the fleet by only transporting materials that cannot be sourced at the point of manufacture. Again, these are complex problems. Their resolution, as a first step, requires leaving fantasy-land to then be able to discuss, evaluate and address reality. Only then will we we able to improve life, clean-up our act and live better. The value in these three desirable outcomes is self-evident to the point that they do not need to be justified by some fantastical imaginary doomsday scenario where all life on earth ceases to exist in, as some politicians have suggested, a dozen years. I am all for being far better about how we behave on this planet. My problem is with creating a religion out of fantasies. Reality does not care about these things and keeps moving forward. It's almost like like stock market.