7 ms·

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

59 points by markmassie 12y ago

PeterWhittaker 12y ago
Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.
- altcognito 12y ago
  The summary was worse than that: We need to switch over in 40 years AND remove large amounts of carbon from the air as well.
  - vixen99 12y ago
    Need? Fierce debate continues but the global warming “hiatus,” followed by up to 50 different reasons for nature not following the prediction of dramatically increased global temperature provides at least some doubt on the matter. Yes, it may catch up later! Meanwhile satellite imagery has shown that the Earth has greened very significantly. It's depressing to note that the advantages of this have rarely been heralded. One has the distinct impression that were some Newton of climatology to publish a paper showing beyond reasonable argument that we do not need to worry be worried at all by the CO2 increase, climatologists and much of the Left (as it happens) would be struck down with misery rather than joy.
- dubfan 12y ago
  From the article: > Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to their profit motives. This is what I keep trying to explain to my environmentalist friends, but there's a strong motivation in that circle to pretend the economic factor doesn't exist and it's as simple as saying "screw you" to oil companies. It doesn't get a good reaction.
  - gaius 12y ago
    I hope they all have organic laptops woven from hemp and twigs, or they'd be massive hypocrites...
    - mnw21cam 12y ago
      Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world to attend conferences on how to stop people flying around the world. Yes, they do tend to see the irony in it all.
      - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
        > Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world Maybe because worldwide scientific activities would grind to a halt if we suddenly went back to three masted schooners and bullock carts.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    India, China, and all the emerging economies in South America and Africa are going to take the same economic route (coal & gas) unless we give them a cheaper alternative. Your right, environmentalists don't seem to understand economics or human nature. People will not sacrifice so we really need to tech our way out of this.
    - mnw21cam 12y ago
      India and China are chucking research and money at new nuclear technology. It's not unreasonable to predict that in 20 years, the west will probably be buying molten salt reactors from China. I think, regarding the economics, there are quite a few environmental scientists who are very cognisant of economics and how that interacts, such as Tim Jackson at the University of Surrey, UK. However, where they do know anything about it, they tend to recognise that economics is not helping the environment at all, so perhaps they should work in areas where they are likely to make a difference instead. There is a fundamental mis-match between the environment and economics. In economics, eternal exponential growth is mandatory. In the environment, eternal exponential growth is impossible.
- vixen99 12y ago
  Could be cheap as chips but without storage, forget it as a solution for most of the world. Nuclear is an exception of course.
melling 12y ago
I don't think most people believe in climate change so you'd probably need to convince more people that it's actually a problem. If you read the WSJ, Facebook, etc, you'll frequently see comments like the following which had nothing to do with climate change and was about the Rosetta probe. http://online.wsj.com/articles/rosetta-probe-directly-discovers-organic-molecules-on-comet-1416256078?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=237691475 http://online.wsj.com/articles/rosetta-probe-directly-discov... "Lets hope that with our last election that the US can get back to real science instead of voodoo climate change superstitions whose purpose is to enrich Democrats and ecowhaacos and to make poor people's energy costs go up." The comment was upvoted a dozen times. I took the couple questions that I answered and started my own FAQ: http://thespanishsite.com/faq/climate http://thespanishsite.com/faq/climate
- tthomas48 12y ago
  I think that's built into this, though. People don't have to "believe" if it's cheaper.
- dubfan 12y ago
  The problem is that the American left has decided to make climate change "their issue", which leads the right wing to engage in denialist tactics. It's important to note that both of these positions are not really based in solid scientific understanding, but because they play to their political ideologies. See how the left can simultaneously support climate science but oppose GMOs, which have a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It's frustrating too, because despite owning the issue, the left doesn't seem interested in the economic factors that this article highlights are necessary to take into account. The anti-corporate contingent of the left finds it distasteful.
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    I think main driver of why people deny climate change is that the market mechanism cannot deal with that situation. So if someone is a firm believer in market solutions to everything, the climate change reality is a tough attack on that personal belief.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
asgard1024 12y ago
I am not sure how they envision renewable energy (that just barely collects solar power) ever competing on the market with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up (that accumulated solar power for thousands years). It's like trying to write new commercial Unix-like operating system, and expect profit, when the companies can already use Linux which is already there and into which the investment has been made. The problem is that we really need to leave that coal and oil in the ground, and not touch it (at least for a couple hundred years), and there is no way markets alone can do that. Even price regulations like carbon tax may not accomplish that goal.
- VLM 12y ago
  "with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up" I've been following and investing in energy companies for a couple decades, and that has to be the worst or funniest summary I've ever heard of their production side. I'm sure you mean well, but... if you know where I can just scoop economically viable quantities of coal and crude off the ground, give us a stock tip, will ya?
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    Well, yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic. Linux also isn't entirely "free" - you have to spent effort configuring it and so on. But I just don't see renewables competing with oil and coal on the fair free market.
ryandvm 12y ago
Bear with me, I've got a hypothetical for you. If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was not anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions - would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it? And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now? Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon. Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40 trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).
- mjevans 12y ago
  Continuing that hypothetical: Most of the effects that climate scientists predict will happen as a result of increased global mean temperature are highly negative; from the extinction of many species to the loss of coastal habitats (for humans). In a non-political world we would compare the costs of climate engineering practices against the costs of taking the resulting losses from failure to act.
- xexers 12y ago
  who gets to control the thermostat? Some countries would want it hotter... others want it colder.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Dad always controls the thermostat. So we'd have to select the most father-like of countries. I hope you like thick sweaters and/or handheld fans, because the Country Like Everybody's Dad isn't made of money, and close the front door, because it isn't paying to heat and/or cool the whole world, plus the inside of your house, too.
- Afforess 12y ago
tim333 12y ago
>What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change It really depends which bit you want to reverse. The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways. The main thing people seem to worry about is temperature and there are artificial ways it could be lowered - SO2 and the like. Though I doubt anyone wants to go there. I'm quite optimistic on renewables taking over eg. "Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn't compete" - The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-h...
- radiorental 12y ago
  "The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways." Yes, but not at the current and predicted rate. Many of the ecosystems we depend on for food will not be able to adapt quickly enough and thus collapse.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  Rocks have fallen out of the sky randomly for billions of years too - sometimes killing whole species and so forth. The fact that something has been happening "for billions of years" is not a reason to ignore it.
squozzer 12y ago
An equally likely solution - probably more likely, given the historical trends of governments - would be to declare half the population as "undesirables", force them to live a pre-industrial existence (if you allow them to live at all), and double the energy prices for the other half, which I'm sure they'll gladly pay given the alternative.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  That's a free market solution, and probably what will happen if we don't act to change things.
  - none_for_me_thx 12y ago
    Are you joking?
- VLM 12y ago
  To "fix" it you'd have to go further, all Pol Pot on the population. We'll probably just continue existing policy, which actually is fairly environmentally sound. If you eliminate the middle class, they can't buy SUVs and take jet aircraft on vacations. Check. If you eliminate industrial sites, they can emit greenhouse gasses. Check. Public policy for decades. See above, temporarily we've outsourced our middle class purchasing to Chinese factory production, but once we get rid of the middle class and return the USA to our agrarian roots, the factories in China will also close. If you concentrate all capital and property ownership into a Very small, optimistically well educated group or individuals or corporations, they will have better chance of enlightened self interest than if the general population is permitted private property. Check, thats been public policy for decades. Impoverish young people to discourage children, permanently lowering environmental load. Check. Public policy for decades. I could go on about health care and homelessness and the highest prison population on the planet, but it all aligns quite well. Honestly, we're already doing so much for the environment I don't know what more we can do without "extreme" measures.
grondilu 12y ago
In his lecture called "Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society"[1], Freeman Dyson[2] states: "the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology". This is based on a calculus of the yearly increase in thickness averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, if all the carbon we're emitting by burning fossil fuel were turned into biomass by photosynthesis. This yearly increase is one hundredth of an inch, and illustrates the "very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil". 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson

59 points by markmassie 12y ago

Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.

altcognito 12y ago
The summary was worse than that: We need to switch over in 40 years AND remove large amounts of carbon from the air as well.
- vixen99 12y ago
  Need? Fierce debate continues but the global warming “hiatus,” followed by up to 50 different reasons for nature not following the prediction of dramatically increased global temperature provides at least some doubt on the matter. Yes, it may catch up later! Meanwhile satellite imagery has shown that the Earth has greened very significantly. It's depressing to note that the advantages of this have rarely been heralded. One has the distinct impression that were some Newton of climatology to publish a paper showing beyond reasonable argument that we do not need to worry be worried at all by the CO2 increase, climatologists and much of the Left (as it happens) would be struck down with misery rather than joy.
dubfan 12y ago
From the article: > Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to their profit motives. This is what I keep trying to explain to my environmentalist friends, but there's a strong motivation in that circle to pretend the economic factor doesn't exist and it's as simple as saying "screw you" to oil companies. It doesn't get a good reaction.
- gaius 12y ago
  I hope they all have organic laptops woven from hemp and twigs, or they'd be massive hypocrites...
  - mnw21cam 12y ago
    Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world to attend conferences on how to stop people flying around the world. Yes, they do tend to see the irony in it all.
    - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
      > Environmental scientists do have a habit of flying all round the world Maybe because worldwide scientific activities would grind to a halt if we suddenly went back to three masted schooners and bullock carts.
- protomyth 12y ago
  India, China, and all the emerging economies in South America and Africa are going to take the same economic route (coal & gas) unless we give them a cheaper alternative. Your right, environmentalists don't seem to understand economics or human nature. People will not sacrifice so we really need to tech our way out of this.
  - mnw21cam 12y ago
    India and China are chucking research and money at new nuclear technology. It's not unreasonable to predict that in 20 years, the west will probably be buying molten salt reactors from China. I think, regarding the economics, there are quite a few environmental scientists who are very cognisant of economics and how that interacts, such as Tim Jackson at the University of Surrey, UK. However, where they do know anything about it, they tend to recognise that economics is not helping the environment at all, so perhaps they should work in areas where they are likely to make a difference instead. There is a fundamental mis-match between the environment and economics. In economics, eternal exponential growth is mandatory. In the environment, eternal exponential growth is impossible.
vixen99 12y ago
Could be cheap as chips but without storage, forget it as a solution for most of the world. Nuclear is an exception of course.

melling 12y ago

I don't think most people believe in climate change so you'd probably need to convince more people that it's actually a problem. If you read the WSJ, Facebook, etc, you'll frequently see comments like the following which had nothing to do with climate change and was about the Rosetta probe. http://online.wsj.com/articles/rosetta-probe-directly-discovers-organic-molecules-on-comet-1416256078?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=237691475 http://online.wsj.com/articles/rosetta-probe-directly-discov... "Lets hope that with our last election that the US can get back to real science instead of voodoo climate change superstitions whose purpose is to enrich Democrats and ecowhaacos and to make poor people's energy costs go up." The comment was upvoted a dozen times. I took the couple questions that I answered and started my own FAQ: http://thespanishsite.com/faq/climate http://thespanishsite.com/faq/climate

tthomas48 12y ago
I think that's built into this, though. People don't have to "believe" if it's cheaper.
dubfan 12y ago
The problem is that the American left has decided to make climate change "their issue", which leads the right wing to engage in denialist tactics. It's important to note that both of these positions are not really based in solid scientific understanding, but because they play to their political ideologies. See how the left can simultaneously support climate science but oppose GMOs, which have a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It's frustrating too, because despite owning the issue, the left doesn't seem interested in the economic factors that this article highlights are necessary to take into account. The anti-corporate contingent of the left finds it distasteful.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  I think main driver of why people deny climate change is that the market mechanism cannot deal with that situation. So if someone is a firm believer in market solutions to everything, the climate change reality is a tough attack on that personal belief.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

asgard1024 12y ago

I am not sure how they envision renewable energy (that just barely collects solar power) ever competing on the market with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up (that accumulated solar power for thousands years). It's like trying to write new commercial Unix-like operating system, and expect profit, when the companies can already use Linux which is already there and into which the investment has been made. The problem is that we really need to leave that coal and oil in the ground, and not touch it (at least for a couple hundred years), and there is no way markets alone can do that. Even price regulations like carbon tax may not accomplish that goal.

VLM 12y ago
"with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up" I've been following and investing in energy companies for a couple decades, and that has to be the worst or funniest summary I've ever heard of their production side. I'm sure you mean well, but... if you know where I can just scoop economically viable quantities of coal and crude off the ground, give us a stock tip, will ya?
- asgard1024 12y ago
  Well, yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic. Linux also isn't entirely "free" - you have to spent effort configuring it and so on. But I just don't see renewables competing with oil and coal on the fair free market.

ryandvm 12y ago

Bear with me, I've got a hypothetical for you. If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change was not anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions - would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it? And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now? Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon. Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40 trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).

mjevans 12y ago
Continuing that hypothetical: Most of the effects that climate scientists predict will happen as a result of increased global mean temperature are highly negative; from the extinction of many species to the loss of coastal habitats (for humans). In a non-political world we would compare the costs of climate engineering practices against the costs of taking the resulting losses from failure to act.
xexers 12y ago
who gets to control the thermostat? Some countries would want it hotter... others want it colder.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Dad always controls the thermostat. So we'd have to select the most father-like of countries. I hope you like thick sweaters and/or handheld fans, because the Country Like Everybody's Dad isn't made of money, and close the front door, because it isn't paying to heat and/or cool the whole world, plus the inside of your house, too.
Afforess 12y ago

tim333 12y ago

>What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change It really depends which bit you want to reverse. The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways. The main thing people seem to worry about is temperature and there are artificial ways it could be lowered - SO2 and the like. Though I doubt anyone wants to go there. I'm quite optimistic on renewables taking over eg. "Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn't compete" - The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-h...

radiorental 12y ago
"The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways." Yes, but not at the current and predicted rate. Many of the ecosystems we depend on for food will not be able to adapt quickly enough and thus collapse.
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
Rocks have fallen out of the sky randomly for billions of years too - sometimes killing whole species and so forth. The fact that something has been happening "for billions of years" is not a reason to ignore it.

squozzer 12y ago

An equally likely solution - probably more likely, given the historical trends of governments - would be to declare half the population as "undesirables", force them to live a pre-industrial existence (if you allow them to live at all), and double the energy prices for the other half, which I'm sure they'll gladly pay given the alternative.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
That's a free market solution, and probably what will happen if we don't act to change things.
- none_for_me_thx 12y ago
  Are you joking?
VLM 12y ago
To "fix" it you'd have to go further, all Pol Pot on the population. We'll probably just continue existing policy, which actually is fairly environmentally sound. If you eliminate the middle class, they can't buy SUVs and take jet aircraft on vacations. Check. If you eliminate industrial sites, they can emit greenhouse gasses. Check. Public policy for decades. See above, temporarily we've outsourced our middle class purchasing to Chinese factory production, but once we get rid of the middle class and return the USA to our agrarian roots, the factories in China will also close. If you concentrate all capital and property ownership into a Very small, optimistically well educated group or individuals or corporations, they will have better chance of enlightened self interest than if the general population is permitted private property. Check, thats been public policy for decades. Impoverish young people to discourage children, permanently lowering environmental load. Check. Public policy for decades. I could go on about health care and homelessness and the highest prison population on the planet, but it all aligns quite well. Honestly, we're already doing so much for the environment I don't know what more we can do without "extreme" measures.

grondilu 12y ago

In his lecture called "Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society"[1], Freeman Dyson[2] states: "the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology". This is based on a calculus of the yearly increase in thickness averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, if all the carbon we're emitting by burning fossil fuel were turned into biomass by photosynthesis. This yearly increase is one hundredth of an inch, and illustrates the "very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil". 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson