3 ms·

Feeling the seeming recklessness, but in the grand scheme of things, it may be worthwhile to throw AI at the problem to validate existence, solutions etc. So “s

Feeling the seeming recklessness, but in the grand scheme of things, it may be worthwhile to throw AI at the problem to validate existence, solutions etc. So “spending” this now vs later is at least unclear wrt to long term outcomes.

bo0tzz 1y ago
We already have clear solutions, the powers that be just don't want to sacrifice their profit margins.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  No. Just no. Nation-wise, all the biggest culprits (US/EU) and a good number of the biggest present and future contributors to climate change are democracies. You do not get to shift collective responsibility onto some "powers that be": Those powers are you and me. The problem is neither that people don't know about climate change, nor that "greedy corporations" prevent us from acting-- the central problem is that people, in general, don't want to sacrifice cheap fuel, electricity and high living standards now for a better future-- not even a little bit. Thats it. You can see this in literally every discussion on environmentalism in basically every election. People only want clean energy as long as they don't have to pay a single dime extra for it. I have not solution for this, but blaming corporations is most certainly not gonna solve this problem (if anything, it's making things worse).
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    Who says that democracies are the solution? Personally, I envision a more authoritarian eco-communism. Others might have other models in mind, but it's a cop-out to say "oh well, we've tried bourgeois democracy and it was inevitably corrupted by capitalist interest, I guess we're all out of ideas..."
    - myrmidon 1y ago
      > oh well, we've tried bourgeois democracy and it was inevitably corrupted by capitalist interest This is not my point. I think most western democracies do exactly what voters want against climate change: Nothing that would cost extra. Effective policies to curb CO2 emissions are numerous and pretty obvious: Get rid of combustion engines, phase out fossil fuels from electricity generation, scale up electric grid interconnectivity and storage, lower emissions in steel/concrete production. Voters are mostly not against those policies, but as soon as there are visible costs (fuel/vehicle/construction/electricity costs rising) or minor inconvenience (vehicle range) any progress gets firmly stopped. I don't see how another form of government would help in any way-- the eco-communists would just get toppled before they could get anything done.
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        I don't disagree with you here, which is why I think authoritarian eco-communism is the only way out. People have to be forced to act in their best interest.
throwaway73848 1y ago
There seem to be only two things that we need answers to with regards to dealing with increasing CO2: 1. Can we capture CO2 and prevent it from affecting the climate in a safe way? 2. Could we create a large “blind” between the earth and sun to safely control how much sunlight hits the earth if the temperature gets too hot? There have been advances in #1 and propositions for #2, but I think most either want to cast blame, bury our heads in the sand, or wallow in self-pity because they think we’re not capable of figuring out a safe solution and/or don’t believe that we could work together to accomplish it.
- nisa 1y ago
  1. No we can't - at least not enough that it matters and it's energy intensive. There is no technical solution here but the powers that be want you to believe that to continue generating profits. 2. That's not how it works. It's more like a greenhouse and climate gases absorb more energy. Also look up after how many meters a steel cable ruptures under it's own weight. It's not exactly easy. Thermonuclear war might help.
  - fliederman 1y ago
    1. To state there is no technical solution is assuming you have all of the knowledge there ever will be in the world to make that assessment. A more proper way to state that is that you don’t know a technical solution, and there may or may not be one. There’s no reason not to do everything we can and research all options. 2. Having the ability to control the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth would help prevent overwarming, which is one possible outcome, and neither thermonuclear war nor any culling of humanity would be a solution, as in fact we’re responsible for this, so we must fix it. You’re basically suggesting killing all the life that could help.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      There might theoretically be a technological solution, but the search for it is a distraction to prevent working structural societal changes from being made.

bo0tzz 1y ago

We already have clear solutions, the powers that be just don't want to sacrifice their profit margins.

myrmidon 1y ago
No. Just no. Nation-wise, all the biggest culprits (US/EU) and a good number of the biggest present and future contributors to climate change are democracies. You do not get to shift collective responsibility onto some "powers that be": Those powers are you and me. The problem is neither that people don't know about climate change, nor that "greedy corporations" prevent us from acting-- the central problem is that people, in general, don't want to sacrifice cheap fuel, electricity and high living standards now for a better future-- not even a little bit. Thats it. You can see this in literally every discussion on environmentalism in basically every election. People only want clean energy as long as they don't have to pay a single dime extra for it. I have not solution for this, but blaming corporations is most certainly not gonna solve this problem (if anything, it's making things worse).
- saubeidl 1y ago
  Who says that democracies are the solution? Personally, I envision a more authoritarian eco-communism. Others might have other models in mind, but it's a cop-out to say "oh well, we've tried bourgeois democracy and it was inevitably corrupted by capitalist interest, I guess we're all out of ideas..."
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    > oh well, we've tried bourgeois democracy and it was inevitably corrupted by capitalist interest This is not my point. I think most western democracies do exactly what voters want against climate change: Nothing that would cost extra. Effective policies to curb CO2 emissions are numerous and pretty obvious: Get rid of combustion engines, phase out fossil fuels from electricity generation, scale up electric grid interconnectivity and storage, lower emissions in steel/concrete production. Voters are mostly not against those policies, but as soon as there are visible costs (fuel/vehicle/construction/electricity costs rising) or minor inconvenience (vehicle range) any progress gets firmly stopped. I don't see how another form of government would help in any way-- the eco-communists would just get toppled before they could get anything done.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      I don't disagree with you here, which is why I think authoritarian eco-communism is the only way out. People have to be forced to act in their best interest.

throwaway73848 1y ago

There seem to be only two things that we need answers to with regards to dealing with increasing CO2: 1. Can we capture CO2 and prevent it from affecting the climate in a safe way? 2. Could we create a large “blind” between the earth and sun to safely control how much sunlight hits the earth if the temperature gets too hot? There have been advances in #1 and propositions for #2, but I think most either want to cast blame, bury our heads in the sand, or wallow in self-pity because they think we’re not capable of figuring out a safe solution and/or don’t believe that we could work together to accomplish it.

nisa 1y ago
1. No we can't - at least not enough that it matters and it's energy intensive. There is no technical solution here but the powers that be want you to believe that to continue generating profits. 2. That's not how it works. It's more like a greenhouse and climate gases absorb more energy. Also look up after how many meters a steel cable ruptures under it's own weight. It's not exactly easy. Thermonuclear war might help.
- fliederman 1y ago
  1. To state there is no technical solution is assuming you have all of the knowledge there ever will be in the world to make that assessment. A more proper way to state that is that you don’t know a technical solution, and there may or may not be one. There’s no reason not to do everything we can and research all options. 2. Having the ability to control the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth would help prevent overwarming, which is one possible outcome, and neither thermonuclear war nor any culling of humanity would be a solution, as in fact we’re responsible for this, so we must fix it. You’re basically suggesting killing all the life that could help.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    There might theoretically be a technological solution, but the search for it is a distraction to prevent working structural societal changes from being made.