Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

tatankatonk posted:

At any rate, I think the question is moot. Broadly speaking, an animalcentric environmentalism that takes the long view isn't going to confict too much with a socialist environmentalism because, well, the things we need to do to keep wolves alive or whatever mostly overlap with the things we need to do to keep the majority of people of 2090 alive. Viewed in terms of AGW, it's cruicial to think of humans as habitat dependent animals as well.

This is a complex and important question and I don't think the answer is straight forward at all. First off I'm not sure what socialist environmentalism is. In fact I've never heard a serious socialist plan to combat global warming and reduce carbon emisssions, or at least not one that differed substantially from a capitalist plan. Sure the left is less wedded to economic growth, but I have never seen a description of how their proposed zero growth system.

Secondly while problems like deforestation are serious for biodiversity, and U.S. immigration has a large climate impact, controlling them may have a disproportionate impact on the world's poor. Like with that Aspen resolution it all looks 100% true doesn't it? I mean do you dispute any of those assertions?

It is totally true that humans are habitat dependent animals, but our habitat is not always the same as that needed and used by other species. I am not convinced at all that policy designed to preserve biodiversity necessarily also serves "socialist environmentalism," or even climate change mitigation. Closely allied they may be, but good luck finding a solution that pleases everyone when latin american squaters seize land in a national forest and defy the authorities to throw them out.

Of course I'll admit that many of the world's poor would greatly benefit from the resolution of environmental problems. For example fish and wild game are an essential component of the diet in many regions. Unfortunately many important fisheries and game species (including primates) are not managed sustainably if at all. Creating sustainable management schemes for these resources should benefit everyone. Just don't expect the benefits to always be universal.

# ? Nov 14, 2012 03:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 18:21

tatankatonk: Nov 4, 2011; Pitching is the art of instilling fear.

Squalid posted:

This is a complex and important question and I don't think the answer is straight forward at all. First off I'm not sure what socialist environmentalism is. In fact I've never heard a serious socialist plan to combat global warming and reduce carbon emisssions, or at least not one that differed substantially from a capitalist plan. Sure the left is less wedded to economic growth, but I have never seen a description of how their proposed zero growth system.

Secondly while problems like deforestation are serious for biodiversity, and U.S. immigration has a large climate impact, controlling them may have a disproportionate impact on the world's poor. Like with that Aspen resolution it all looks 100% true doesn't it? I mean do you dispute any of those assertions?

Pellow and Park wouldn't deny that settlerist immigration to North America has and has had huge environmental impacts. Their point about the Aspen resolution is that it is grossly hypocritical, deeply unequal, and white supremacist approach to the issue at hand.

quote:

It is totally true that humans are habitat dependent animals, but our habitat is not always the same as that needed and used by other species. I am not convinced at all that policy designed to preserve biodiversity necessarily also serves "socialist environmentalism," or even climate change mitigation. Closely allied they may be, but good luck finding a solution that pleases everyone when latin american squaters seize land in a national forest and defy the authorities to throw them out.

When I was speaking broadly about socialist environmentalism and biodiversity overlapping more or less, I had in mind forecasts like, all commercially useful species of fish being extirpated by 2050. In any case, in terms of latino squatters seizing Federal land well, call me when that reaches proportions on the level of "the founding of the state of Oklahoma" or "the current operations of Barrick Gold" or "present levels of rangeland degradation via overgrazing" and maybe It'll be worth analyzing from an environmental impact perspective

quote:

Of course I'll admit that many of the world's poor would greatly benefit from the resolution of environmental problems. For example fish and wild game are an essential component of the diet in many regions. Unfortunately many important fisheries and game species (including primates) are not managed sustainably if at all. Creating sustainable management schemes for these resources should benefit everyone. Just don't expect the benefits to always be universal.

I don't expect the benefits to be universal. I just hope the trade offs that have to be made end up expropriating the wealthy and powerful rather than the presently dispossessed and immiserated.

# ? Nov 14, 2012 04:41

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Excuse me, I should have made it clear I meant Latin American squatters taking over land in Latin America, not in the United States. I just wanted to emphasis that not all environmental goals may be achieved at once. Oh? You want to protect endangered tropical birds but still permit limited sustainable logging within a forest? Too bad merely putting in a logging road could drive those species to extinction.

It is important to remember this when assholes in Cape Cod are blocking development of wind farms to protect their expensive views. Not all environmental campaigns are grounded on the same premises, or share the same objectives.

# ? Nov 14, 2012 07:56

tatankatonk: Nov 4, 2011; Pitching is the art of instilling fear.

Squalid posted:

Excuse me, I should have made it clear I meant Latin American squatters taking over land in Latin America

I see.

quote:

Not all environmental campaigns are grounded on the same premises, or share the same objectives.

I think everyone in this thread agrees with that.

# ? Nov 14, 2012 13:38

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Prepare to VIOLENTLY VOMIT ON EVERYTHING

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/three-climate-contrarians-vie-to-lead-house-science-committee/

The GOPs making a huge push on taking over the house science committee with denialists. That much is standard fare.

Now, ready with the barf bag? Here goes!

From: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/representative-dana-rohrabacher-.html?ref=hp

quote:

Q: You've been critical of climate and environmental scientists; would you do anything to address that strained relationship?

D.R.: My analysis is that in the global warming debate, we won. There were a lot of scientists who were just going along with the flow on the idea that mankind was causing a change in the world's climate. I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming.[

Chunks everywhere! :barf:

# ? Nov 21, 2012 03:04

Feral Integral: Jun 6, 2006; YOSPOS

duck monster posted:

Chunks everywhere!

I liked this one:

quote:

Q: Are there other issues you are thinking about?

D.R.: One thing I really bring to the leadership is an international perspective. If we are going to have major scientific initiatives, like [on] space debris clearing�which we need to do�or asteroid defense, there needs to be international cooperation. I would go out of my way to enlist other countries in cooperative space efforts.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 06:09

Maluco Marinero: Jan 18, 2001; Damn that's a
fine elephant.

Ahaha. Lets move on from this so called "climate change" folks. We need to be clearing space debris and shooting down asteroids, this is a serious issue folks.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 06:27

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

As cool a piece of anime as Planetes was, we are not going to be sending dudes into orbit to clear space junk. There are millions or billions of pieces of junk out there, each requiring huge amounts of energy to interecept.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 08:35

The Ender: Aug 2, 2012; MY OPINIONS ARE NOT WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN SHIT

quote:

We can have a debate on fracking [the natural gas drilling technique]. Let's have two scientists who say fracking is a danger to the country, and two scientists who say it's the best hope we've ever had. Let's put them in a debate forum in front the committee. The same should be true of global warming. � We would become a science and technology forum as well as an authorizer.

Yeah! That's how REAL, UNBIASED science works! Two sides have an argument, and the side that gets the most cheers is right!

:allears:

quote:

Q: You've been critical of climate and environmental scientists; would you do anything to address that strained relationship?

D.R.: My analysis is that in the global warming debate, we won. There were a lot of scientists who were just going along with the flow on the idea that mankind was causing a change in the world's climate. I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming.

Q: If you lose the leadership race, will remain on the science committee?

D.R.: Oh yes, I plan to be an activist one way or another. I love science.

No, you portly gently caress, you don't love science. You love rocket ships and lasers, and while those things were invented as a result of science, they in and of themselves are not science.

I love the old Carl Sagan quote because it's so terribly true:

"We accepted the products of science; we rejected it's methods."

# ? Nov 21, 2012 08:58

UP AND ADAM: Jan 24, 2007; by Pragmatica

duck monster posted:

As cool a piece of anime as Planetes was, we are not going to be sending dudes into orbit to clear space junk. There are millions or billions of pieces of junk out there, each requiring huge amounts of energy to interecept.

Yeah, no poo poo. This is why I'm infuriated when I see a "space exploration" thread on SA; people act like redditors in their dull cheerleading of anything that will make their lives more like an anime or videogame. And I know that so few of them will ever be that passionate about climate change.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 15:07

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

duck monster posted:

Prepare to VIOLENTLY VOMIT ON EVERYTHING

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/three-climate-contrarians-vie-to-lead-house-science-committee/

The GOPs making a huge push on taking over the house science committee with denialists. That much is standard fare.

Now, ready with the barf bag? Here goes!

From: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/11/representative-dana-rohrabacher-.html?ref=hp

Chunks everywhere!

Yea, I was going to post this yesterday. But of course while this is going on there's a steady stream of bad news from elsewhere:

World Bank Climate Change Report Warns of Dramatically Warmer World This Century (You can download the full report towards the top right of the page)

quote:

Rising Sea Levels

The report says sea levels have been rising faster in the last two decades than previously, and this rise is being seen in many tropical regions of the world. This phenomenon is partly due to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; the rapid growth in melt area observed since the 1970s in Greenland�s ice sheet is a clear illustration of its increasing vulnerability. Arctic sea ice also reached a record minimum in September 2012. "There are indications that the greatest melt extent in the past 225 years has occurred in the last decade," says the report.

"It�s early yet but clearly some of the small island states and coastal communities are beginning to take a hard look at their options," said Erick Fernandes, co-lead of the Bank�s Global Expert Team on Climate Change Adaptation. "The need to adapt to climate change will increase as global population reaches 9 billion in 2050," he added.

Ocean Acidification

Coral reefs are acutely sensitive to changes in water temperature and acidity levels. The report warns that by the time the warming levels reach 1.4� C in 2030s, coral reefs may stop growing. This would be a result of oceans becoming more acidic as a result of higher CO2 concentrations. And with 2.4� C, coral reefs in several areas may actually start to dissolve. This is likely to have profound consequences for people who depend on them for food, income, tourism and shoreline protection.

Heat Extremes

A 4�C warmer world would also suffer more extreme heat waves, and these events will not be evenly distributed across the world, according to the report.

Sub-tropical Mediterranean, northern Africa, the Middle East, and the contiguous United States are likely to see monthly summer temperatures rise by more than 6�C. Temperatures of the warmest July between 2080-2100 in the Mediterranean are expected to approach 35�C � about 9�C warmer than the warmest July estimated for the present day. The warmest July month in the Sahara and the Middle East will see temperatures as high as 45�C, or 6-7�C above the warmest July simulated for the present day.

Lower agricultural yields

Hotter weather could in turn lower crop yields in a 4�C world�raising concerns about future food security. Field experiments have shown that crops are highly sensitive to temperatures above certain thresholds. One study cited in the report found that each �growing degree day� spent at a temperature of 30 degrees decreases yields by 1% under drought-free rain-fed conditions.

The report also says drought-affected areas would increase from 15.4% of global cropland today, to around 44% by 2100. The most severely affected regions in the next 30 to 90 years will likely be in southern Africa, the United States, southern Europe and Southeast Asia, says the report. In Africa, the report predicts 35% of cropland will become unsuitable for cultivation in a 5�C world.

Risks to Human Support Systems

The report identifies severe risks related to adverse impacts on water availability, particularly in northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. River basins like the Ganges and the Nile are particularly vulnerable. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much double by 2050. The world could lose several habitats and species with a 4�C warming.

Non-linear impacts

As global warming approaches and exceeds 2�C, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping elements. Examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting ecosystems, rivers, agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods. This would further add to 21st-century global warming and impact entire continents.

Also:
European Environment Agency - Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012 (Even the summary for this one is 34 pages long so I'm not going to bore everybody with more quotes. I think we're all familiar with the content of this sort of thing by now.)

Honestly? At this point I'm just completely fatigued and fatalistic. It's a joke to think that keeping below 2�C is at all plausible and the reports coming out seem to be pleading to at least try to remain below 4�C as an absolute last resort. As far as I can see there are still no credible ongoing efforts to make a serious effort to reduce emissions, and I feel like we'd need an absolute paradigm shift in what modern society is about in order to start making the radical changes needed. People still think that turning off the lights and walking to the shops is going to save the planet.

Reading all these reports feels like reading news reports of horrific natural disasters, counting up the dead bodies and recounting the suffering and damage. I can't shake the feeling that using any means necessary to depose the braindead fucks still somehow denying that this is even an issue is now a rational course of action in the long-term, and that holy poo poo, I'm mentally becoming an eco-terrorist. And I can't convince myself that that's an irrational mindset any more :smith:

# ? Nov 21, 2012 17:32

deptstoremook: Jan 12, 2004; my mom got scared and said "you're moving with your Aunt and Uncle in Bel-Air!"

UP AND ADAM posted:

Yeah, no poo poo. This is why I'm infuriated when I see a "space exploration" thread on SA; people act like redditors in their dull cheerleading of anything that will make their lives more like an anime or videogame. And I know that so few of them will ever be that passionate about climate change.

In this very thread, though, you see people clinging to a hope (or faith) that somehow space exploration or a magic energy technology will come along and save us without us having to change anything or do much work at all, really.

I can think of no greater tragedy than a future where humans figure out how to live on other planets without learning how to be stewards this one--it would of course be perfectly characteristic of our modus operandi: just chew through this one and get another. There are people who actually think this is something cool, and worth doing, and where we should be putting our resources.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 17:55

Midee: Jun 22, 2000

UP AND ADAM posted:

Yeah, no poo poo. This is why I'm infuriated when I see a "space exploration" thread on SA; people act like redditors in their dull cheerleading of anything that will make their lives more like an anime or videogame. And I know that so few of them will ever be that passionate about climate change.

Please don't scapegoat space because of a couple dumb posters. :ohdear:

Space exploration and mitigating climate change are not mutually exclusive ideals.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 18:20

Ssthalar: Sep 16, 2007

TACD posted:

I'm mentally becoming an eco-terrorist. And I can't convince myself that that's an irrational mindset any more

You write that as an, i assume, normally functioning person with no actual mental illneses. Try to imagine how these "news" are for me, someone who suffers from schizoid tendencies and partial psychoses (among other things). This loving subject (climate change) drives me from one end of the spectrum of hate, to the other, several times a day!
To want to see the world burn and mankind perish in it's own folly in one moment and in the next, wanting to save everyone because mankind as a species has so much loving potential.. It's impossible to put into words how hosed this whole thing is...

I look at Transhumanism and fusion and all those awesome things we might be able to do and then i get let down when i realize that the constant political bickering will make our lives on this planet hell, before we even get a chance to get anywhere near these posibilities.. :sigh:

And yet, i seem to have resigned myself to bitter acceptance of the whole thing, since i won't have my machine body, so might as well let the world burn... gently caress me, the way i think and gently caress everyone of us for putting ourselves in this mess..

May the gods have mercy upon us.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 18:39

Guigui: Jan 19, 2010; Winner of January '10 Lux Aeterna "Best 2010 Poster" Award

Midee posted:

Please don't scapegoat space because of a couple dumb posters.

Space exploration and mitigating climate change are not mutually exclusive ideals.

Astronauts have compared viewing the earth in the cold void of space as something of a religious experience. Carl Sagan often described astronomy as a humbling profession.

The only other places humanity can "go" visit are planets that are so hostile to human life that they make any place on earth a living paradise. "What, you mean - I don't have to live in a suit 21 hours of the day, under artificial light, with the constant hum of ventilation fans dulling my hearing and only some potted plants as natural?"

In a cruel twist of fate, it could be the colonists who may become the strongest staunch supporters of protecting the earth.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 18:57

a lovely poster: Aug 5, 2011; by Pipski

TACD posted:

I'm mentally becoming an eco-terrorist. And I can't convince myself that that's an irrational mindset any more

it's not

I wonder how many more years we'll have to sit through "we need to act now or its too late" before the scientific community acknowledges that we haven't and aren't going to do anything to stop it.

Climate change deniers are a lot better than the "serious" politicians like Al Gore who make up a bunch of bullshit about how we can avert global climate change while continuing to jet across the globe making handfuls of money speaking to crowds and then returning to one of his many mega mansions.

Climate change is a bigger issue than this society is capable of handling in a responsible manner. We've been past the point of no return for a while, right now we're just watching as our policymakers and politicians ensure that we'll be as hosed as possible over the coming millennia.

# ? Nov 21, 2012 19:11

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

Assuming we go over 4 degrees, where would be a good place in the world to live and watch civilization tear itself apart? Northern Canada?

# ? Nov 22, 2012 06:45

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

deptstoremook posted:

In this very thread, though, you see people clinging to a hope ~~(or faith)~~ that somehow space exploration or a magic energy technology will come along and save us because we don't have the political power to change anything or do much work at all, really.

Fixed that for what people actually believe. I think breakthrough technologies are the best hope for humanity because convincing the world to act together against climate change is even less likely.

:smith:

# ? Nov 22, 2012 06:54

The Ender: Aug 2, 2012; MY OPINIONS ARE NOT WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN SHIT

quote:

Reading all these reports feels like reading news reports of horrific natural disasters, counting up the dead bodies and recounting the suffering and damage. I can't shake the feeling that using any means necessary to depose the braindead fucks still somehow denying that this is even an issue is now a rational course of action in the long-term, and that holy poo poo, I'm mentally becoming an eco-terrorist. And I can't convince myself that that's an irrational mindset any more

Whenever I get stupidly angry about this issue, to the point of fantasizing about some violent 'solution', I try to remind myself that avoiding a really violent future is exactly why I bother to get emotionally invested in the first place.

quote:

Assuming we go over 4 degrees, where would be a good place in the world to live and watch civilization tear itself apart? Northern Canada?

Yes; northern Canada, central Greenland, northern Europe, northern Russia; anyplace with a harsh winter climate.

Of course, that's only considering the environmental impacts. The geopolitical impacts will probably render very, very few places 'safe'.

EDIT: I mean, how old are you going to be in 2050, when the poo poo really starts hitting the fan? I'll be 66. I'll be a loving senior citizen, probably with varying age-related health problems and no longer in my physical prime, trying to deal with the social ceiling coming down.

You know who's going to hate my guts, I imagine? loving everybody that isn't also a senior citizen. All of the people that did the damage will be dead or so senile they're irrelevant, and you & I will be left holding the loving bag for a generation of kids & young adults that get to grow-up watching the infrastructure that they were supposed to enjoy fall apart.

It's not going to be fun times, no matter where you live (though it'll certainly be worse in places like the current corn belt in the U.S.)

The Ender fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Nov 22, 2012

# ? Nov 22, 2012 07:03

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

The Ender posted:

Whenever I get stupidly angry about this issue, to the point of fantasizing about some violent 'solution', I try to remind myself that avoiding a really violent future is exactly why I bother to get emotionally invested in the first place.

I wouldn't say I am 'fantasizing' about it, and I'm not about to actually go out and join a radicalist group or anything. But the argument in my mind goes like this: Incredibly educated, respected people have been trying to get change to happen for at least, what, 20+ years? With ever-increasing numbers in their ranks, with ever-increasing urgency, and ever-more dire warnings of what will happen if we don't start to make serious changes soon, then very soon, then right now. We're now at the point where the entire scientific community is effectively screaming, crying, and pointing out the window to where fragile ecosystems are melting away right in front of our eyes and during our lives, and the absolute best that has been achieved are some pathetically token gestures and increasingly surreal denial of the facts from half of the political sphere.

What do we do? The current approach isn't working and if nothing gets done then literally millions (if not billions) of people are going to actually die. We just don't have time to continue to have some farcical 'debate' about this with people who disagree. It's imperative that anybody who doesn't think this is an issue is ignored or pushed aside so that drastic measures can be taken.

Please, convince me that this is wrong somehow, because I am very aware that this sounds like a completely overboard fringe opinion, but I just don't see how the current approach to this is getting any results.

To be honest, given that pretty much every report I've read about climate change reports changes 'worse than expected' on most metrics, I suspect that in the next few years the scientific community will shift focus from 'attempting to avoid catastrophic climate change' to 'mitigating damage from the now-unstoppable catastrophic climate change'.

# ? Nov 22, 2012 18:18

UP AND ADAM: Jan 24, 2007; by Pragmatica

The only people who would reassure you that the issue will work itself out are those who are way out of their depth, knowledge-wise, on this issue. They're often the same people who believe in the power of capitalism to actually eventually be an equitable (and sustainable, steady, non-booming and busting) form of distribution.

# ? Nov 22, 2012 18:52

Amamake: Nov 10, 2009

The Ender posted:

Yes; northern Canada, central Greenland, northern Europe, northern Russia; anyplace with a harsh winter climate.

Can anyone recommend a book or something on how Russian climate will change in the next few decades?

Where I live, we didn't have a real winter in years. According to wikipedia (yeah) Moscow has some of the most obvious signs of GW, making denialism very unfashionable -- we however do seek to gain from GW in both relative and absolute terms if we play our cards right and don't mismanage upcoming crisises too much. Yeah I know, millions of people all over the worlds will die, but hey look at the bright side :smithicide:

# ? Nov 22, 2012 19:08

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Russia stands no chance to benefit. Too few people to defend what will be relatively good farmland. With infrastructure built on permafrost (Trans-siberian railroad being the famous example) things in the far East will turn into a place for people to squabble over without the Russian government having a real say in the matter.

# ? Nov 22, 2012 19:53

Oh dear me: Aug 14, 2012; I have burned numerous saucepans, sometimes right through the metal

TACD posted:

Please, convince me that this is wrong somehow, because I am very aware that this sounds like a completely overboard fringe opinion, but I just don't see how the current approach to this is getting any results.

It doesn't sound overboard to me. There's just no reason to suppose eco-terrorism would do any good, either - is there?

# ? Nov 22, 2012 20:38

Amamake: Nov 10, 2009

Claverjoe posted:

Russia stands no chance to benefit. Too few people to defend what will be relatively good farmland. With infrastructure built on permafrost (Trans-siberian railroad being the famous example) things in the far East will turn into a place for people to squabble over without the Russian government having a real say in the matter.

So if we ignore all that Tom Clancy conspiracy theory squabble bullshit, what you are basically saying, is that Russia stands to benefit enormously?

There are some obvious military and demographical concerns, but that's not even remotely as worrisome to me as the ability of the government to react to rapidly changing environment, taking advantage of whatever benefits and mitigating whatever challenges.

# ? Nov 22, 2012 21:12

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

TACD posted:

Please, convince me that this is wrong somehow, because I am very aware that this sounds like a completely overboard fringe opinion, but I just don't see how the current approach to this is getting any results.

It's not wrong, but it is somewhat fantastical, as though every key political actor who has a lot to lose in the immediate short-term by supporting policy that is essentially focused on deindustrialization can simply be "ignored" and not debated with when they are the ones holding all the cards.

Mitigation or resilience policy will likely come into play once climate change becomes too unbearable for modern global capitalism. If droughts in the corn belt start becoming yearly events instead of once-a-decade catastrophes, policy will necessarily shift towards trying to find some way to build up regional resilience. If New Orleans gets flooded again, policy will focus on either the construction of more solid seawalls or a redistribution policy focused on moving further inland. This, ultimately, is the problem of democractic-capitalist countries with regards to climate change: the hoarding of wealth prevents said wealth from being used to buoy nations that are otherwise pursuing policies of mitigation.

As for eco-terrorism, it won't do a drat thing. Radical anti-Western groups - who are far more well-organized, well-funded, etc. than any current radical eco-terrorist groups - haven't accomplished a great deal of their agenda (Israel still exists; American incursions into the Middle East increased instead of decreased; etc.). The concept that bombing coal-fired plants or whatever would create effective political change - especially on a worldwide scale (because this is simply not a local issue anymore) - is a liberal revolutionary fantasy.

The best possible thing to do is to actively pursue and support policy options that are tenable in the current political/economic environment, because we simply do not have the time for a worldwide eco-socialist revolution with how things are accelerating. Something like the development of a solid nuclear infrastructure would help to ameliorate emissions from coal-fired plants, at the least, as well as being relatively tenable due to the massive amount of employment that would be required in order to build and operate it. Renewables are gaining more traction, and though I doubt they can completely replace the current electrical infrastructure of any major Western nation, they do create mitigation. Focusing on helping to develop local resiliency - creating secondary food sources via personal or community gardens, for example - is probably the best "effective" thing that you can do at the moment, quite frankly.

This is not to say that this is not a very dire situation and that it is going to cause an enormous amount of suffering and death in the world. It is, however, important to realize that we are individual people trying to deal with a problem that requires massive, coordinated, continental action. It is important that we continue to fight tooth-and-nail in order to create as best a future as possible, but it is equally important to not fall into the despair of giving up ("There's nothing to do; just have to sit back and watch the world burn") or of taking radical action without a great deal of thought as to what that radical action will even entail, or how it will help to solve one of the greatest challenges of human history.

# ? Nov 22, 2012 22:30

The Ender: Aug 2, 2012; MY OPINIONS ARE NOT WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN SHIT

quote:

What do we do? The current approach isn't working and if nothing gets done then literally millions (if not billions) of people are going to actually die. We just don't have time to continue to have some farcical 'debate' about this with people who disagree. It's imperative that anybody who doesn't think this is an issue is ignored or pushed aside so that drastic measures can be taken.

Please, convince me that this is wrong somehow, because I am very aware that this sounds like a completely overboard fringe opinion, but I just don't see how the current approach to this is getting any results.

Just change your lightbulbs.

Look, if the democratic institutes & capitalists will not listen, unfortunately, we can't do anything about that. At this juncture, we can only adjust our own individual energy use. That won't nearly be enough, but there you go.

Someone said it earlier - if democracy doesn't work to address this problem, then it won't survive. Nobody is going to need to engage in eco-terrorism or any kind of revolutionary movement because the public will happily burn down the democratic institutes as soon as it stops providing them with food & cheap entertainment as surely as Rome was put to the torch.

The Ender fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Nov 23, 2012

# ? Nov 22, 2012 22:56

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Is there any reason to think that a temporary geoengineering solution where we suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, even if not cost effective now, will forever be an implausible solution? Right now it seems like people are pessimistic about the approach either because they don't want people to lose focus or because they don't think it's cost effective. But imagine what happens when disaster begins to strike and we realize such a solution is the only way to get any relief. Won't the worlds best minds turn their efforts to geoengineering?

# ? Nov 22, 2012 23:54

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Houston Euler posted:

Is there any reason to think that a temporary geoengineering solution where we suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, even if not cost effective now, will forever be an implausible solution? Right now it seems like people are pessimistic about the approach either because they don't want people to lose focus or because they don't think it's cost effective. But imagine what happens when disaster begins to strike and we realize such a solution is the only way to get any relief. Won't the worlds best minds turn their efforts to geoengineering?

The problem is that you can't turn the climate around on a dime. The amount of inertia in the system is large enough that if we get to the point where "disaster begins to strike" (arguably it's already begun to do so), it's far too late. For 20th-century status quo modern industrial capitalism and western liberal democracy to be perpetuated more-or-less unchanged through this century, a massive buildout of some alternative energy infrastructure would have had to have happened probably 30-40 years ago.

# ? Nov 22, 2012 23:59

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Vermain posted:

The best possible thing to do is to actively pursue and support policy options that are tenable in the current political/economic environment, because we simply do not have the time for a worldwide eco-socialist revolution with how things are accelerating. Something like the development of a solid nuclear infrastructure would help to ameliorate emissions from coal-fired plants, at the least, as well as being relatively tenable due to the massive amount of employment that would be required in order to build and operate it. Renewables are gaining more traction, and though I doubt they can completely replace the current electrical infrastructure of any major Western nation, they do create mitigation. Focusing on helping to develop local resiliency - creating secondary food sources via personal or community gardens, for example - is probably the best "effective" thing that you can do at the moment, quite frankly.

I'm waiting for that other shoe to fall, for that realization that "best tenable political solution" is realized for the bromide it is. If your solution isn't a real solution, it's not helpful, no matter how nice or relatively more comfortable it leaves you feeling. At some point I just feel like you owe it to the guy to be honest that he is dieing, and on an increasingly more certain time table.

It's like deciding to feed a cancer patient ice cream instead of chemo out of concern for flavor. He may die with chemo and in a terrible, unpleasant state. But that ice cream certainly isn't going to save him, no matter if effective treatment is even possible.

quote:

It is important that we continue to fight tooth-and-nail in order to create as best a future as possible, but it is equally important to not fall into the despair of giving up

Just don't despair or give up or else we'll never get this totally ineffective solution going as one happy human team, all in this together.

# ? Nov 23, 2012 00:10

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Paper Mac posted:

The problem is that you can't turn the climate around on a dime. The amount of inertia in the system is large enough that if we get to the point where "disaster begins to strike" (arguably it's already begun to do so), it's far too late. For 20th-century status quo modern industrial capitalism and western liberal democracy to be perpetuated more-or-less unchanged through this century, a massive buildout of some alternative energy infrastructure would have had to have happened probably 30-40 years ago.

Not to mention that even if we somehow got a big science drive behind carbon capture, it'll do no good if the damage to ecosystems has already happened. You can't just engineer and replace lost biodiversity.

# ? Nov 23, 2012 00:14

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Well no, the damage to ecosystems is permanent. With time, you can get some back, but it wont ever be the same. We have to live with that.

Geoengineering is, and should only be, triage for a massive problem. Ideally you do something to counteract the warming while you work on getting emissions down, and then keep it going until the effects of cutting C02 emissions kick in. Which is asking for a multi-generational geoengineering project. But I don't see any other way if we aren't going to meet the 2 degrees C average global temperature deadline.

And again, it's not like saying "well geoengineering is dangerous and we shouldn't try to mess with a delicate system" is realistic. It's true, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that push come to shove, smaller nations who will either be feeling the effects earlier than other nations, or don't have the resources to mitigate the effects of climate change wont throw everything they have at any kind of cheaper geoengineering solution.

That's why there needs to be some kind of global consensus on the issue, because as difficult as it will be to get through this crisis, it's going to be even harder if individual nations (or corporations as we have seen!) start experimenting with the climate that, in turn, destroy the environment for their neighbours, or the people on the other side of the planet. That's just going to lead to wars.

Dreylad fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Nov 23, 2012

# ? Nov 23, 2012 00:17

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Midee posted:

Please don't scapegoat space because of a couple dumb posters.

Space exploration and mitigating climate change are not mutually exclusive ideals.

Oh I honestly believe space is the future of our species, somehow. Like star trek styles. Hell if some reasonably plausible boffins of late are to believed , we're one "Scientists have figured out how to make negative mass unobtanium in the lab" discovery away from warp drive wonderland. That poo poo would own. Our great great great grandchildren will be bro fist-bumping worf and Quark on DS9 (well more likely just other humans) , as long as we don't wreck ourselves with climate change in the process of getting that far.

But We aint going to be sending space janitors to clean up space junk, at least until we come up with a better solution to getting spaceships into orbit than strapping cockpits on missiles.

duck monster fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Nov 23, 2012

# ? Nov 23, 2012 00:19

Broken Machine: Oct 22, 2010

Where we'll really see it soon is melting permafrost releasing CO2 and Methane. It's estimated that permafrost contains twice as much stored carbon dioxide as is currently in the atmosphere. Current informal estimates from scientists in the field are that it could end up being over a third of yearly emissions if we don't get a handle on things, down to 5% if we do (NYT article).

# ? Nov 23, 2012 00:24

The Ender: Aug 2, 2012; MY OPINIONS ARE NOT WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN SHIT

Houston Euler posted:

Is there any reason to think that a temporary geoengineering solution where we suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, even if not cost effective now, will forever be an implausible solution? Right now it seems like people are pessimistic about the approach either because they don't want people to lose focus or because they don't think it's cost effective. But imagine what happens when disaster begins to strike and we realize such a solution is the only way to get any relief. Won't the worlds best minds turn their efforts to geoengineering?

No, that could work; it's a matter of, again, who is going to get it done and when are we going to start?

Like Dreyland mentioned, if we don't start an organized effort now, it's likely that there will be a very chaotic & desperate effort later, and this could lead to all manner of problems.

There's also some disturbing implications with carbon capture. If, say, the U.S. builds a large array of mechanical carbon filter towers to counteract coal burning CO2 output, they would effectively have control over the planet's planet's temperature knob. A nation-state (or nation states) with political interests would step-in in favor of the planet's own uncaring regulation systems.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it bothers me to think about.

# ? Nov 23, 2012 00:58

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Dreylad posted:

Well no, the damage to ecosystems is permanent. With time, you can get some back, but it wont ever be the same. We have to live with that.

Geoengineering is, and should only be, triage for a massive problem. Ideally you do something to counteract the warming while you work on getting emissions down, and then keep it going until the effects of cutting C02 emissions kick in. Which is asking for a multi-generational geoengineering project. But I don't see any other way if we aren't going to meet the 2 degrees C average global temperature deadline.

And again, it's not like saying "well geoengineering is dangerous and we shouldn't try to mess with a delicate system" is realistic. It's true, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that push come to shove, smaller nations who will either be feeling the effects earlier than other nations, or don't have the resources to mitigate the effects of climate change wont throw everything they have at any kind of cheaper geoengineering solution.

That's why there needs to be some kind of global consensus on the issue, because as difficult as it will be to get through this crisis, it's going to be even harder if individual nations (or corporations as we have seen!) start experimenting with the climate that, in turn, destroy the environment for their neighbours, or the people on the other side of the planet. That's just going to lead to wars.

I pretty much take for granted that some multilateral coalition of states is eventually going to get up and go "gently caress it, we're doing the stratospheric sulphur dioxide doping thing". The thing I wonder about is how brittle that system might be- could non-state actors plausibly interfere with it? Like if a few pipelines got bombed and avgas got real scarce for a few months during growing season, could that induce a catastrophe if CO2 reductions hadn't happened yet? I'm assuming that any geoengineering scheme will probably be used as an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels for a good long while, so that kind of thing could be a serious issue.

# ? Nov 23, 2012 01:05

bpower: Feb 19, 2011

Broken Machine posted:

Where we'll really see it soon is melting permafrost releasing CO2 and Methane. It's estimated that permafrost contains twice as much stored carbon dioxide as is currently in the atmosphere. Current informal estimates from scientists in the field are that it could end up being over a third of yearly emissions if we don't get a handle on things, down to 5% if we do (NYT article).

We're completely hosed aren't we?

# ? Nov 23, 2012 01:18

Ssthalar: Sep 16, 2007

bpower posted:

We're completely hosed aren't we?

Utterly hosed. From what i understand and i'm pretty sure also got mentioned earlier in the thread, once this poo poo starts happening, it will be a self-reinforcing effect.

# ? Nov 23, 2012 01:22

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

Oh dear me posted:

It doesn't sound overboard to me. There's just no reason to suppose eco-terrorism would do any good, either - is there?

Vermain posted:

It's not wrong, but it is somewhat fantastical, as though every key political actor who has a lot to lose in the immediate short-term by supporting policy that is essentially focused on deindustrialization can simply be "ignored" and not debated with when they are the ones holding all the cards.

...

As for eco-terrorism, it won't do a drat thing. Radical anti-Western groups - who are far more well-organized, well-funded, etc. than any current radical eco-terrorist groups - haven't accomplished a great deal of their agenda (Israel still exists; American incursions into the Middle East increased instead of decreased; etc.). The concept that bombing coal-fired plants or whatever would create effective political change - especially on a worldwide scale (because this is simply not a local issue anymore) - is a liberal revolutionary fantasy.

Yes, these points are very correct, and I apologise for flying off the handle.

Vermain posted:

The best possible thing to do is to actively pursue and support policy options that are tenable in the current political/economic environment, because we simply do not have the time for a worldwide eco-socialist revolution with how things are accelerating. Something like the development of a solid nuclear infrastructure would help to ameliorate emissions from coal-fired plants, at the least, as well as being relatively tenable due to the massive amount of employment that would be required in order to build and operate it.

...however, I still believe that this approach has, and continues to, achieve essentially nothing other than making people feel good about 'doing something'. We can all describe how things could and should change, but they simply aren't. If the situation was more like gay rights - still behind where we should be but gradually making progress in the right direction - then I would agree that campaigning and support for progressive policies to keep the momentum going would be worthwhile. But as it stands... well, like I said, I'm pretty defeatist now. Sorry.

Edit:

Vermain posted:

Focusing on helping to develop local resiliency - creating secondary food sources via personal or community gardens, for example - is probably the best "effective" thing that you can do at the moment, quite frankly.

Forgot to add - this I do agree with. Several commentators I've read on this subject have voiced opinions that we are transitioning into a world where the current governmental system is simply not going to be able to protect us like we're used to, and I do think the best thing each person or family can do is find or form a strong, small interdependent community as unreliant on outside sources for basic needs as possible. (For example, I've considered one day relocating to the small village of Chew Magna because of its 'Go Zero' project, but there are several other places of similar interest that I've found.)

TACD fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Nov 23, 2012

# ? Nov 23, 2012 01:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 18:21

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Amamake posted:

So if we ignore all that Tom Clancy conspiracy theory squabble bullshit, what you are basically saying, is that Russia stands to benefit enormously?

There are some obvious military and demographical concerns, but that's not even remotely as worrisome to me as the ability of the government to react to rapidly changing environment, taking advantage of whatever benefits and mitigating whatever challenges.

Who is Tom Clancy, and why am I supposed to be him if I talk about how population pressures spill over to the empty parts of Russia.

# ? Nov 23, 2012 14:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›260 »