7 ms·

This article does a pretty good job of synthesizing why I'm fairly optimistic about climate change despite believing the scientific models. I think that there i

by cmsmith 11y ago

This article does a pretty good job of synthesizing why I'm fairly optimistic about climate change despite believing the scientific models. I think that there is an austerity/flagellant meme within environmental circles that states that we have sinned against the environment, and unless the solution involves a heroic self-sacrifice (a la Kyoto protocol) then we cannot be saved. In reality, all power is solar power, and innovation and market forces will eventually make it more efficient to skip the fossil-fuel middleman. The process could be accelerated by a carbon tax, but it will happen either way. Responding to the 'Climate is still screwed' point, once we're on track to stabilizing emissions, geo-engineering methods that were dismissed as stopgaps can always be used to hold the climate over for the next century.

henrikschroder 11y ago
Agreed, appealing to people's conscience to buy the more expensive, but more environmentally friendly option doesn't work at scale, because only the upper-middle class can make that choice consistently. Most people cannot afford it, and won't make the choice. But once the most environmentally friendly choice is the cheapest choice, then, as if by magic, everyone will switch. Car pollution too high? Make electric cars cheaper to buy and own,and everyone will switch. Coal power plant pollution too high? Make solar power plants cheaper, and everyone will switch. Meat industry pollutes too much/uses too much water/is unethical? Make synthetic meat cheaper, and everyone will switch.
- VLM 11y ago
  I would agree with and extend your remarks that humans tend to be slightly more adaptable than they are usually given credit. A century ago it was utterly unthinkable that people would drink milk in any format other than quart glass jars delivered daily to a little airlock on the side of the house. My neighbors ancient brick house still has their milk delivery door! Now a days people get their gallon of antibiotics and growth hormones in plastic gallon jugs that last a week or so. Turned out to not be a big deal. Humans adapt, its just what we do. Can't run a grid at night? Well, then don't. Or more likely a KWh at noon will be a 100th the cost of a KWh at midnight, maybe less. Not being able to run my clothes dryer at 3am sounds a lot like the astroturfers who claim the universe will end if they can't drive their SUV 800 miles daily so no one should be permitted to buy electric cars.
  - pyre 11y ago
    > Now a days people get their gallon of antibiotics and growth hormones A century ago there was notably less antibiotics and growth hormones...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    And in the other direction, technology is getting to the point where the required adaptation is a lot smaller. The idea of conservation used to be combined with the idea of sacrifice. Save the planet by living in the dark, bundling up in sweaters, and exhausting yourself on a bicycle to get anywhere. Today I light my house with LEDs that are nearly 10x more efficient than incandescents and should last just about forever. High efficiency HVAC and good insulation mean that the energy I expend on climate control is very small. I drive an electric car which is a fantastic way to get around. Some of these (like the electric car) are not good economic choices yet. Others are. But the ones that aren't are becoming so pretty quickly. That is the face of conservation now: great stuff that just happens to be efficient.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> In reality, all power is solar power If you're going to use that metaphor, then really, all power is nuclear power, since that's how all that solar energy is generated.
- redblacktree 11y ago
  It's also not entirely true. There is energy emitted by the earth as well.
  - beambot 11y ago
    Planets composed of matter, whose heavy elements are the results of nuclear processes and subsequent supernovae.
- infogulch 11y ago
  You mean, to be more specific, that all power is nuclear fusion power. Actually, yes. When fusion reactors are available they'll cut out the middleman again -- and this middleman will be solar. But to be fair, the sun will remain the largest fusion reactor humans can access for quite some time so solar may continue to be relevant while we are close to it.
- spenczar5 11y ago
  Not quite - tidal power is purely gravitational, and doesn't rely on nuclear forces at all.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    That same argument applies to the (metaphorical) claim that all power is solar, which is what I was poking fun at.
    - spenczar5 11y ago
      Oh, of course - I'm just playing the game too. Technically correct: the best kind of correct.
pjc50 11y ago
This is a bit like saying that the people causing panic over Y2K were unwarranted because everyone checked their systems and sorted it out in advance. If nobody had panicked about it, then nothing would have been done. Solar has become economical at least partly because the subsidies are working, by causing economies of scale in manufacturing, novel process technology, etc. (However, the single biggest solar development that's a byproduct of the silicon chip industry is the reduced kerf diamond wire saw used for cutting ingots with the minimum of waste)
adrianN 11y ago
I would be very wary of Geo Engineering approaches. Our models of the global climate are really not complete enough to risk setting of some weird feedback loop by trying to undo the damage we already did. The safest bet is stopping carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible to avoid catastrophic warming. I don't believe that the market will do that quickly enough on its own, as the costs of climate change are not accounted in the profits of burning fossil fuels. We really shouldn't burn enough coal to make extracting the rest more expensive than renewable energy.
Lynbarry 11y ago
The problem with this is that once we've reached a "perilous level of global warming", it is quite possible that there is no way back. The 2 degrees target seems to be already out of reach and everything beyond that gets closer and closer to being unpredictable. Of course no one knows what exactly will happen anyway. But as an example: If the arctic permafrost starts to melt methane gets released into the atmosphere which further accelerates everything [1]. I would not hope on some not-yet-existing or not-yet-usable technologies to fix everything we're messing up now. The "eventually" when finally everyone stops using fossil fuels because other kinds of energy are cheaper might be just too late. [1] http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/ http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-...
- netcan 11y ago
  This is where geo-engineering can come in. I think climate scientist will be much more comfortable discussing it if it seems we are on track for fixing the underlying causes. There are bunch of different ideas, most of them involve directly interacting with global temperature by reflecting energy back to space. Injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere for example, mimics how some volcanic eruptions cause temporary cooling. Another is massive scale cloud seeding over the oceans. One of the scariest things about these ideas is how cheap could be are. What happens if Canada decides it would really prefer a milder winter and sprays the hydro dioxide up there like a bunch of unruly mounties? Then they cut it out and Uzbekistan do the same.
  - dreamcompiler 11y ago
    Many types of geo-engineering could in theory work to cool the planet. But none of the proposals I'm aware of will decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere. Without fixing that, we'll still have ocean acidification, which will dramatically change how the oceans support life. It's possible that most forms of seafood we know today will become extinct. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidificati...
    - 11y ago
pyre 11y ago
> In reality, all power is solar power The Earth's molten core is not solar power.
- dreamcompiler 11y ago
  It's gravitational power, which also powers the sun.
  - arielby 11y ago
    No it doesn't.
Sir_Substance 11y ago
>In reality, all power is solar power Uwot. Geothermal? Fission?

by cmsmith 11y ago

henrikschroder 11y ago

Agreed, appealing to people's conscience to buy the more expensive, but more environmentally friendly option doesn't work at scale, because only the upper-middle class can make that choice consistently. Most people cannot afford it, and won't make the choice. But once the most environmentally friendly choice is the cheapest choice, then, as if by magic, everyone will switch. Car pollution too high? Make electric cars cheaper to buy and own,and everyone will switch. Coal power plant pollution too high? Make solar power plants cheaper, and everyone will switch. Meat industry pollutes too much/uses too much water/is unethical? Make synthetic meat cheaper, and everyone will switch.

VLM 11y ago
I would agree with and extend your remarks that humans tend to be slightly more adaptable than they are usually given credit. A century ago it was utterly unthinkable that people would drink milk in any format other than quart glass jars delivered daily to a little airlock on the side of the house. My neighbors ancient brick house still has their milk delivery door! Now a days people get their gallon of antibiotics and growth hormones in plastic gallon jugs that last a week or so. Turned out to not be a big deal. Humans adapt, its just what we do. Can't run a grid at night? Well, then don't. Or more likely a KWh at noon will be a 100th the cost of a KWh at midnight, maybe less. Not being able to run my clothes dryer at 3am sounds a lot like the astroturfers who claim the universe will end if they can't drive their SUV 800 miles daily so no one should be permitted to buy electric cars.
- pyre 11y ago
  > Now a days people get their gallon of antibiotics and growth hormones A century ago there was notably less antibiotics and growth hormones...
- mikeash 11y ago
  And in the other direction, technology is getting to the point where the required adaptation is a lot smaller. The idea of conservation used to be combined with the idea of sacrifice. Save the planet by living in the dark, bundling up in sweaters, and exhausting yourself on a bicycle to get anywhere. Today I light my house with LEDs that are nearly 10x more efficient than incandescents and should last just about forever. High efficiency HVAC and good insulation mean that the energy I expend on climate control is very small. I drive an electric car which is a fantastic way to get around. Some of these (like the electric car) are not good economic choices yet. Others are. But the ones that aren't are becoming so pretty quickly. That is the face of conservation now: great stuff that just happens to be efficient.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> In reality, all power is solar power If you're going to use that metaphor, then really, all power is nuclear power, since that's how all that solar energy is generated.

redblacktree 11y ago
It's also not entirely true. There is energy emitted by the earth as well.
- beambot 11y ago
  Planets composed of matter, whose heavy elements are the results of nuclear processes and subsequent supernovae.
infogulch 11y ago
You mean, to be more specific, that all power is nuclear fusion power. Actually, yes. When fusion reactors are available they'll cut out the middleman again -- and this middleman will be solar. But to be fair, the sun will remain the largest fusion reactor humans can access for quite some time so solar may continue to be relevant while we are close to it.
spenczar5 11y ago
Not quite - tidal power is purely gravitational, and doesn't rely on nuclear forces at all.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  That same argument applies to the (metaphorical) claim that all power is solar, which is what I was poking fun at.
  - spenczar5 11y ago
    Oh, of course - I'm just playing the game too. Technically correct: the best kind of correct.

pjc50 11y ago

This is a bit like saying that the people causing panic over Y2K were unwarranted because everyone checked their systems and sorted it out in advance. If nobody had panicked about it, then nothing would have been done. Solar has become economical at least partly because the subsidies are working, by causing economies of scale in manufacturing, novel process technology, etc. (However, the single biggest solar development that's a byproduct of the silicon chip industry is the reduced kerf diamond wire saw used for cutting ingots with the minimum of waste)

adrianN 11y ago

I would be very wary of Geo Engineering approaches. Our models of the global climate are really not complete enough to risk setting of some weird feedback loop by trying to undo the damage we already did. The safest bet is stopping carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible to avoid catastrophic warming. I don't believe that the market will do that quickly enough on its own, as the costs of climate change are not accounted in the profits of burning fossil fuels. We really shouldn't burn enough coal to make extracting the rest more expensive than renewable energy.

Lynbarry 11y ago

The problem with this is that once we've reached a "perilous level of global warming", it is quite possible that there is no way back. The 2 degrees target seems to be already out of reach and everything beyond that gets closer and closer to being unpredictable. Of course no one knows what exactly will happen anyway. But as an example: If the arctic permafrost starts to melt methane gets released into the atmosphere which further accelerates everything [1]. I would not hope on some not-yet-existing or not-yet-usable technologies to fix everything we're messing up now. The "eventually" when finally everyone stops using fossil fuels because other kinds of energy are cheaper might be just too late. [1] http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/ http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-...

netcan 11y ago
This is where geo-engineering can come in. I think climate scientist will be much more comfortable discussing it if it seems we are on track for fixing the underlying causes. There are bunch of different ideas, most of them involve directly interacting with global temperature by reflecting energy back to space. Injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere for example, mimics how some volcanic eruptions cause temporary cooling. Another is massive scale cloud seeding over the oceans. One of the scariest things about these ideas is how cheap could be are. What happens if Canada decides it would really prefer a milder winter and sprays the hydro dioxide up there like a bunch of unruly mounties? Then they cut it out and Uzbekistan do the same.
- dreamcompiler 11y ago
  Many types of geo-engineering could in theory work to cool the planet. But none of the proposals I'm aware of will decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere. Without fixing that, we'll still have ocean acidification, which will dramatically change how the oceans support life. It's possible that most forms of seafood we know today will become extinct. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidificati...
  - 11y ago

pyre 11y ago

> In reality, all power is solar power The Earth's molten core is not solar power.

dreamcompiler 11y ago
It's gravitational power, which also powers the sun.
- arielby 11y ago
  No it doesn't.

Sir_Substance 11y ago

>In reality, all power is solar power Uwot. Geothermal? Fission?