7 ms·

It seems like so much has been said about climate change, with such comparatively miniscule action by the powerful. Imagine being one of the optimates, the fin

It seems like so much has been said about climate change, with such comparatively miniscule action by the powerful. Imagine being one of the optimates, the financial ultra-elite. You are at the pinnacle of power in our civilization. You have children, perhaps even grandchildren. You can subvert the rule of law to a huge extent and get away with it. The sheer power of your wealth can take on its own dynamic, allowing you to spend vast amounts on the most ludicrous ideas and still come out OK by sheer artificial demand. Thus, you can will a lot of things into existence. What do you choose to do about climate change? Invest in many potential breakthroughs? Bring the smartest and most capable people in R&D together and partner with government to bring the best solutions to fruition at scale? Make your mark by moderating the impact of climate change and allow your children to live at least in a similar world to what we have today? Nope. Instead, you choose to invest in pollution. The future be damned. The above is actually happening, right now, at enormous scale. I'd urge people to remember this when our culture communicates that the worth of a person correlates with their net worth; it does not. In the rotten competition for more and more, Seneca's words come to mind: "The better man may win. But the winner is bound to be the worse man."

safety1st 2y ago
I mean despite constant economic growth, something which fundamentally depends on increased energy consumption, the US has decreased emissions per capita by 30% since 1970: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... This despite the fact that energy use has increased by about 60% during that time: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ How do you look at these facts and what you see in them is "The billionaires are destroying our planet and don't care?" How do you not see 30% less emissions on 60% more energy usage as a big win for the environment that should be celebrated? If you look at the rest of the world it generally follows the same trend, with the massive, massive exception of China: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita All this is not to let anyone off the hook - I've long said if there's any one piece of the emission reductions pie that's missing, it's political action against China as a dirty exporter that we've all come to depend on and offshore our dirty industry to. Now we are at least getting some kind of action on that front, even if it's a President and a justification that you don't like. But my real point here is, I'm so sick of these Doomer takes that are just rhetoric about why the world is awful and you need to blame someone convenient. When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. Developed countries have cleaned up their act in a big way, sure they may have more work to do, but the next big frontier is to solve the China emissions issue in a way other than just moving all the dirty industry to India, and sorry to say this is not something that a random billionaire can fix overnight.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  The Texas legislature is currently attempting to pass legislation that disadvantages solar and batteries in preference of fossil gas. They don’t care about climate change or the future. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB388 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89... https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bill-gas-over-renewables https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Additional citation: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas-self-destruct-its-clean-energy-industry https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas...
- defrost 2y ago
  > When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. The reality is that emissions are still increasing .. they need to stop increasing, they need to decrease considerably, and some of the emissions we've already put into the atmosphere need to be clawed back. While we can acknowledge that the US is now (14.3 tonne per person) rolling less coal per person than it was in the 1970s (21 tonne per US citizen a year) it is still the case that the US is still emitting more per person than any other country on the planet. Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries ("the China emissions" issue has a sizable component that is really "a US consumption" issue). I'm no doomer, I have a career in geophysics and have a pragmatic grounded view of the world. That said the take you have presented is papering over the very real issues.
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    >Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries That's only partially true and has flattened off in recent years. In the US the deficit of goods and services imports vs exports only represents 2.8% of total GDP.
graeme 2y ago
This kind of cynicism just encourages inaction. First, it frames the problem as only that of the powerful. But largely, opinion polls are against the kind of action that would be useful. Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. It is widely opposed and public pressure has led to regulations blocking it or even expanding it. Second, a lot of ultra wealthy ARE funding research. Bill Gates contributed substantially (though pulled back recently). Stripe notably has made Stripe Climate, which lets businesses contribute shares of revenue to carbon sequestration tech, which is absolutely vital to removing CO2 from the air if we somehow got to net zero. They promoted it heavily and made great UI to allow businesses to list it as a marketing expense. The real block is us. Public opinion is very powerful. Now, specific companies have worked mightily to convince the public not to act, particularly from the oil sector. But the convenient message of gloom posting is not to do anything not to believe in doing anything and fob it off to the rich. (I use Stripe Climate, it's great)
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. Renewables + storage is also, when combined, a baseload tech. If you are implying nuclear fills a niche on the grid that cannot be filled by renewables + storage, you're mistaken.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    A lot of Europe lies in northern areas where solar is simply insufficient, especially in winter. Solar / wind + huge batteries + huge transmission lines would compare: capture sunlight in places like Bulgaria or Greece, feed places like Norway or Britain. But this is way more disruptive, and likely expensive, than a nuclear power plant.
    - Epa095 2y ago
      Op said renewables, not solar. Both Norway and Sweeden have significant (renewable) hydro, which pairs well with the cyclical nature of both wind and solar.
junelle 2y ago
[flagged]
barbazoo 2y ago
Perhaps those personality traits are incompatible with each other or at least very unlikely. It reflects badly on our species but hopefully we’re just going through a dip on a grand scale of things but toward a more peaceful and equitable world. A world where we don’t fetishize wealth accumulation.
- hdivider 2y ago
  The world in your last sentence may be possible. Consider: we have entire libraries full of psychological research about all sorts of behaviors and disorders. And quite often, how to deal with them. Now: do we use any of this expensively acquired knowledge in our political processes, in any consequential way? Nope. :) Do we use it in the corporate world? Nope. Anywhere else, outside of the ivory tower? Also nope. For the most part, it just sits there unused. But suppose we did use our psychological knowledge at great scale and fidelity. Then we should be able to treat many systemic issues. Because ultimately, it is merely human psychology that holds us back, rather than any physical resource limitations.
  - namaria 2y ago
    You're right but you're also missing the fact that the currently predominant mindset of selfish resource accumulation was actually manufactured. In the early 20th century, psychological and psychiatric research was weaponized by large corporations to solve overproduction crisis by creating consumerism. There's a great documentary about it called "The Century of Self" This isn't the inevitable product of human psyche. This is an engineered state devised to do precisely what's driving climate change: consume resources at an accelerating rate.
    - barbazoo 2y ago
      I'm reading Gabor Mate's "Myth of Normal" and it helped me understand a lot more the nature of some of our misery and how much of it can be traced back to consumerism.
  - imtheopposite 2y ago
bryanlarsen 2y ago
$2.1 trillion dollars was spent on the global energy transition in 2024. That's not miniscule. https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-transition-exceeded-2-trillion-for-the-first-time-in-2024-according-to-bloombergnef-report/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-...

safety1st 2y ago

I mean despite constant economic growth, something which fundamentally depends on increased energy consumption, the US has decreased emissions per capita by 30% since 1970: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... This despite the fact that energy use has increased by about 60% during that time: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ How do you look at these facts and what you see in them is "The billionaires are destroying our planet and don't care?" How do you not see 30% less emissions on 60% more energy usage as a big win for the environment that should be celebrated? If you look at the rest of the world it generally follows the same trend, with the massive, massive exception of China: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita All this is not to let anyone off the hook - I've long said if there's any one piece of the emission reductions pie that's missing, it's political action against China as a dirty exporter that we've all come to depend on and offshore our dirty industry to. Now we are at least getting some kind of action on that front, even if it's a President and a justification that you don't like. But my real point here is, I'm so sick of these Doomer takes that are just rhetoric about why the world is awful and you need to blame someone convenient. When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. Developed countries have cleaned up their act in a big way, sure they may have more work to do, but the next big frontier is to solve the China emissions issue in a way other than just moving all the dirty industry to India, and sorry to say this is not something that a random billionaire can fix overnight.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
The Texas legislature is currently attempting to pass legislation that disadvantages solar and batteries in preference of fossil gas. They don’t care about climate change or the future. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB388 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89... https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bill-gas-over-renewables https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Additional citation: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas-self-destruct-its-clean-energy-industry https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/will-texas...
defrost 2y ago
> When the reality is that there has been enormous action and enormous progress all over the planet. The reality is that emissions are still increasing .. they need to stop increasing, they need to decrease considerably, and some of the emissions we've already put into the atmosphere need to be clawed back. While we can acknowledge that the US is now (14.3 tonne per person) rolling less coal per person than it was in the 1970s (21 tonne per US citizen a year) it is still the case that the US is still emitting more per person than any other country on the planet. Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries ("the China emissions" issue has a sizable component that is really "a US consumption" issue). I'm no doomer, I have a career in geophysics and have a pragmatic grounded view of the world. That said the take you have presented is papering over the very real issues.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  >Developed countries have "cleaned up their act" largely by outsourcing emissions intensive industry to developing countries That's only partially true and has flattened off in recent years. In the US the deficit of goods and services imports vs exports only represents 2.8% of total GDP.

graeme 2y ago

This kind of cynicism just encourages inaction. First, it frames the problem as only that of the powerful. But largely, opinion polls are against the kind of action that would be useful. Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. It is widely opposed and public pressure has led to regulations blocking it or even expanding it. Second, a lot of ultra wealthy ARE funding research. Bill Gates contributed substantially (though pulled back recently). Stripe notably has made Stripe Climate, which lets businesses contribute shares of revenue to carbon sequestration tech, which is absolutely vital to removing CO2 from the air if we somehow got to net zero. They promoted it heavily and made great UI to allow businesses to list it as a marketing expense. The real block is us. Public opinion is very powerful. Now, specific companies have worked mightily to convince the public not to act, particularly from the oil sector. But the convenient message of gloom posting is not to do anything not to believe in doing anything and fob it off to the rich. (I use Stripe Climate, it's great)

pfdietz 2y ago
> Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. Renewables + storage is also, when combined, a baseload tech. If you are implying nuclear fills a niche on the grid that cannot be filled by renewables + storage, you're mistaken.
- nine_k 2y ago
  A lot of Europe lies in northern areas where solar is simply insufficient, especially in winter. Solar / wind + huge batteries + huge transmission lines would compare: capture sunlight in places like Bulgaria or Greece, feed places like Norway or Britain. But this is way more disruptive, and likely expensive, than a nuclear power plant.
  - Epa095 2y ago
    Op said renewables, not solar. Both Norway and Sweeden have significant (renewable) hydro, which pairs well with the cyclical nature of both wind and solar.

junelle 2y ago

[flagged]

barbazoo 2y ago

Perhaps those personality traits are incompatible with each other or at least very unlikely. It reflects badly on our species but hopefully we’re just going through a dip on a grand scale of things but toward a more peaceful and equitable world. A world where we don’t fetishize wealth accumulation.

hdivider 2y ago
The world in your last sentence may be possible. Consider: we have entire libraries full of psychological research about all sorts of behaviors and disorders. And quite often, how to deal with them. Now: do we use any of this expensively acquired knowledge in our political processes, in any consequential way? Nope. :) Do we use it in the corporate world? Nope. Anywhere else, outside of the ivory tower? Also nope. For the most part, it just sits there unused. But suppose we did use our psychological knowledge at great scale and fidelity. Then we should be able to treat many systemic issues. Because ultimately, it is merely human psychology that holds us back, rather than any physical resource limitations.
- namaria 2y ago
  You're right but you're also missing the fact that the currently predominant mindset of selfish resource accumulation was actually manufactured. In the early 20th century, psychological and psychiatric research was weaponized by large corporations to solve overproduction crisis by creating consumerism. There's a great documentary about it called "The Century of Self" This isn't the inevitable product of human psyche. This is an engineered state devised to do precisely what's driving climate change: consume resources at an accelerating rate.
  - barbazoo 2y ago
    I'm reading Gabor Mate's "Myth of Normal" and it helped me understand a lot more the nature of some of our misery and how much of it can be traced back to consumerism.
- imtheopposite 2y ago

bryanlarsen 2y ago

$2.1 trillion dollars was spent on the global energy transition in 2024. That's not miniscule. https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-transition-exceeded-2-trillion-for-the-first-time-in-2024-according-to-bloombergnef-report/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-...