|
Forever_Peace posted:It's a good question. I won't pretend I know the policy minutia, but the evidence so far seems like industries are responding to the incentives in the anticipated direction. For example, British Columbia instituted a province-level carbon tax in 2008 and has since reduced emissions at 3 times the rate of the rest of Canada. Yes but what is the increase in using off shore shipping in international waters that is not counted? You have to count the whole system, regional is meaningless.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Yes but what is the increase in using off shore shipping in international waters that is not counted? You have to count the whole system, regional is meaningless. Once again, leakage through trade isn't nearly a big an issue as you keep claiming. Most of the emissions reduction comes from reduced transportation fuel use. That's something that you won't leak to another country. I can't outsource my driving to another country in a meaningful way. Let me guess, you think the Paris Agreement is "meaningless" too, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Once again, leakage through trade isn't nearly a big an issue as you keep claiming. Do you have anything that supports this idea or are you just going to keep repeating it until they close the thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Yes but what is the increase in using off shore shipping in international waters that is not counted? You have to count the whole system, regional is meaningless. Yeah, leakage is a great argument for expanding carbon pricing further - the more buy-in you have, the better it works for everybody. Though really, folks around here seem awful quick to throw around the word "meaningless". In the website I linked, they discuss how most of the leakage they could identify was actually in power generation. B.C. gets most of their power through hydroelectric (only 2% of their own emissions come from power generation), but there were times that up to a quarter of energy needs were imported in from other provinces, and this consumption was not subject to their carbon tax. Of course, the new country-wide carbon pricing system closes this leakage. And the "lowered emissions three times faster than the rest of Canada" number did not include power generation (because that would make B.C. look unfairly good) and is adjusted for population. As to the question of "how big of a problem is leakage", I found this recent white paper from the Congressional Budget Office that suggests that about 28% of US GHG emissions could theoretically be subject to leakage (page 5) - transportation, residential, commercial, construction, and power generation sector emissions can't reasonably be expected to be internationally traded, leaving agricultural, mining, and manufacturing sectors as the primary places where leakage could theoretically occur. In the models they identified, the mean expected leakage for a single country was about 12% of overall emission reductions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you have anything that supports this idea or are you just going to keep repeating it until they close the thread? In this particular instance, the link in this post has lots of info on the BC gains and the specifics of which industries and where the gains come from. Forever_Peace posted:It's a good question. I won't pretend I know the policy minutia, but the evidence so far seems like industries are responding to the incentives in the anticipated direction. For example, British Columbia instituted a province-level carbon tax in 2008 and has since reduced emissions at 3 times the rate of the rest of Canada. I've said before leakage is a big regulatory concern but does anyone have evidence the BC system has these leakages?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In this particular instance, the link in this post has lots of info on the BC gains and the specifics of which industries and where the gains come from. I don't know, 4% of our total emissions doesn't seem that strange to me. And there's a good point made by Uncle Jam, which is how does international shipping even factor into this? Who's counting what emissions for those products? It seems like even measuring these sorts of things could get very delicate quickly. Point being stop talking out of your rear end. That link is dubious support for your argument (which seems to be "it's not that big of a deal"...) at best. I think it's a valid point that globalization has enabled countries to offset their GHG emissions through exporting some of their dirtier industries. Looking at things from a US lens is kind of pointless though because it's a global issue, and honestly the problems in the US pale in comparison to what China, India, the Middle East, Africa, etc are facing. Even if the US can successfully lower it's own emissions, that simply will not be enough. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you that doing something is better than doing nothing, it doesn't mean things are fine ok and we should stop worrying about it. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I don't know, 4% of our total emissions doesn't seem that strange to me. And there's a good point made by Uncle Jam, which is how does international shipping even factor into this? Who's counting what emissions for those products? It seems like even measuring these sorts of things could get very delicate quickly. Point being stop talking out of your rear end. That link is dubious support for your argument (which seems to be "it's not that big of a deal"...) at best. The poster I was replying to was basically saying BC's program is as good as nothing without any evidence. And I've never said things are fine and we should stop worrying. Leakage is a huge issue and an important thing to talk about, but it doesn't make the gains meaningless because they're also not reducing some other system out there too. Leakage at worst mitigates the good done by the amount leaked. BC did reduce their emissions and that alone makes the program not meaningless, that's my larger point. I'm entirely down to discuss how we can stop that 28% that could become leakage, but people are just so dismissive of any program that's trying to do good if it can't do perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I don't know, 4% of our total emissions doesn't seem that strange to me. And there's a good point made by Uncle Jam, which is how does international shipping even factor into this? Who's counting what emissions for those products? It seems like even measuring these sorts of things could get very delicate quickly. Point being stop talking out of your rear end. That link is dubious support for your argument (which seems to be "it's not that big of a deal"...) at best. God what kind of an idiot would say that "things are fine and we should stop worrying about it". In this thread of all places! Man that would be really embarrassing Can I propose that we all agree on "inebibtn" as an acronym for "it's not enough but it's better than nothing" that I can just slap on the bottom of news posts so that actual topical things don't keep immediately devolving into conversations about whether the tone of each post has the appropriate level of cynicism? ForumSoftware, you're right that leakage is an interesting topic, so go read the damned CBO paper on it that you clearly didn't. Trabisnikof, stop talking out your rear end. Leakage is expected by nearly every model of the impact of carbon pricing on emissions, there's no reason to believe that B.C. is a special exception. The burden of proof is on the improbable claim. In other news, here is a meteorologist discussing coastal development theory in the age of climate change (specifically in response to hurricane Matthew).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Emerging Climate Accord Could Push A/C Out of Sweltering India’s Reachquote:HFCs function as a sort of supergreenhouse gas, with 1,000 times the heat-trapping potency of carbon dioxide. While they account for just a small percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, scientists say a surge in the use of HFC-fueled air-conditioners would alone contribute to nearly a full degree Fahrenheit of atmospheric warming over the coming century — in an environment where just three degrees of warming could be enough to tip the planet into an irreversible future of rising sea levels, more powerful storms and deluges, extreme drought, food shortages and other devastating impacts. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/asia/india-air-conditioning.html AHAHAHA we are so hosed
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
call to action posted:Emerging Climate Accord Could Push A/C Out of Sweltering India’s Reach ...why? We've come up with better, lower impact refrigerants almost yearly now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...why? We've come up with better, lower impact refrigerants almost yearly now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:Because those add a not insignificant expense, and if the article is to be believed, even the lovely HFC units they're finally getting are very costly to people living there. By the time regulators finish mincing around and ban them the idea of making A/C more expensive will likely be very unpopular, and tons of HFC units will have already been placed. Thanks to hard work we already have the beginnings of a strong international movement to ban them. China and the US already have a bilateral treaty on them and the EU has a cap and ban system in place. We will just have to switch to other refrigerants. The harms that causes are just another line item in the list of the human tragedy stemming from our inaction on climate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Thanks to hard work we already have the beginnings of a strong international movement to ban them. China and the US already have a bilateral treaty on them and the EU has a cap and ban system in place. We will just have to switch to other refrigerants. The harms that causes are just another line item in the list of the human tragedy stemming from our inaction on climate. So people in India have to die of heat stroke due to unaffordable AC, because first worlders are starting to realize that the carbon that they put into the atmosphere is starting to threaten Miami's property values. Keep in mind that the entire reason they need AC in the first place is due to Western overconsumption. Nice, man, nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:China and the US ... and the EU 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:So people in India have to die of heat stroke due to unaffordable AC, because first worlders are starting to realize that the carbon that they put into the atmosphere is starting to threaten Miami's property values. Keep in mind that the entire reason they need AC in the first place is due to Western overconsumption. Nice, man, nice. Get ready for the new normal, where we start treating developing countries as if their impacts on the climate are acts of aggression. There's a really great chart out there that has the cumulative emissions by country since 1900, anyone have it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
call to action posted:So people in India have to die of heat stroke due to unaffordable AC, because first worlders are starting to realize that the carbon that they put into the atmosphere is starting to threaten Miami's property values. Keep in mind that the entire reason they need AC in the first place is due to Western overconsumption. Nice, man, nice. I mean what exactly is the alternative you are suggesting? We continue to use chemicals far worse for the climate than co2? By all means I'm in favor of the rich paying the poor to adapt and mitigate, but we can't ignore science. HFCs are very bad for climate: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anjali-jaiswal/big-opportunity-slow-climate-change-global-hfc-phase-down CrashCat posted:I thought the article was about India? And it is, my point being the international community is working to ban those chemicals and that's good. Likewise, the richer nations are taking the lead on this as they should. American and European consumers can hopefully cover more of the production infrastructure transition costs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:There will be a free webinar called 'Fostering a Scientifically Informed Populace' tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean what exactly is the alternative you are suggesting? We continue to use chemicals far worse for the climate than co2? By all means I'm in favor of the rich paying the poor to adapt and mitigate, but we can't ignore science. HFCs are very bad for climate: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anjali-jaiswal/big-opportunity-slow-climate-change-global-hfc-phase-down Submit to fear and despair, because seemingly inconsequential poo poo like cheap ACs alone are causing 1degF of warming that we'd be locked into even if we went 100% carbon free yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
call to action posted:Submit to fear and despair, because seemingly inconsequential poo poo like cheap ACs alone are causing 1degF of warming that we'd be locked into even if we went 100% carbon free yesterday. I think in a bizarre way this post brings up a core part of the cultural challenge we face with mitigation and adaptation: system size and inconsequentiality. HVAC has been one of the biggest challenges to human homeostasis since the beginning. Our complete mastery of it is relatively new (we put people on the moon before we air conditioned the US south) and our ability to heat and cool shifts all of our infrastructure around it. There is nothing inconsequential about cheap AC. We built less effient buildings because AC was cheap. We built new power plants to power those cheap houses. We built suburbs and roads to support those houses because AC was cheap. Who wants thermal mass when AC is cheap? A long commute in your car is easier with an AC, etc etc. Plus now we are locked in. We built those cheap houses, we knocked down the old stone building for a higher sq. ft. one. Now others who didn't make those choices will be harmed far more than the reward they will ever feel for their sacrifice. But it certainly feels inconsequential and a requisite. I know my productivity declines when it is too hot. The idea that we have to change something so personal for what appears to be a raindrop in a thunderstorm, feels wrong. To abstract further, a large challenge of climate change and culture is precisely that we as humans literally can't fully conceive of these systems completely in our heads but we certainly will feel the sacrifices we are being asked to make. So we have a cultural need for our own survival to reinforce the idea that these actions can and do add up. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:To abstract further, a large challenge of climate change and culture is precisely that we as humans literally can't fully conceive of these systems completely in our heads but we certainly will feel the sacrifices we are being asked to make. So we have a cultural need for our own survival to reinforce the idea that these actions can and do add up. A bigger problem is getting the first world to accept that your emissions per capita are literally irrelevant because the Co2 warming the earth right now is all the poo poo we've put in the air over the past 120 years. The first world wants to go on and on about efficiency gains, but nobody wants to address the big elephant in the room, which is that if WE do not provide a path for those nations to industrialize in a clean way THEY will not do it. And it's unreasonable for us to expect them to. Part of solving the climate problem is the first world countries (hint hint, the US) need to step up and take responsibility for their part in this, not fail to sign/participate in international treaties like Kyoto. The developing world simply will not watch the US play protectionist with climate policies and try to push all impacts onto their own populations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:A bigger problem is getting the first world to accept that your emissions per capita are literally irrelevant because the Co2 warming the earth right now is all the poo poo we've put in the air over the past 120 years. The first world wants to go on and on about efficiency gains, but nobody wants to address the big elephant in the room, which is that if WE do not provide a path for those nations to industrialize in a clean way THEY will not do it. And it's unreasonable for us to expect them to. I think your second point, that we need clean paths for developing economies and the developed world needs to help (IP & $) I agree. I disagree that the first part, that we should stop focusing on reducing emissions in the west. I believe that they are interconnected and western emission reductions helps the goal of clean transitional economies and we need to do both anyway. Developed world emissions reductions helps reduce costs for developing countries to deploy those same resources. PV in Africa is cheaper because of US, EU and Chinese pro-climate policies. Likewise, the developed world should be the ones taking the risks on novel technology. The US should be pushing mandates on our power grid that pushes our know-how and technology rather than saying "hey Indonesia, you do it first." Besides, the fact of the matter is everyone needs to get to a zero carbon economy and we need the activism infrastructure to be able to advocate for transitional economies for the developing world and post carbon economies in the developed at the same time. NewForumSoftware posted:The developing world simply will not watch the US play protectionist with climate policies and try to push all impacts onto their own populations. Indeed, that's a big reason why people consider Paris to be such a milestone. Edit: accidentally switched developed with developing at a key point. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Get ready for the new normal, where we start treating developing countries as if their impacts on the climate are acts of aggression. We should probably be funding their solutions and alternatives since we caused the problem but I think that kind of altruism would never gain any ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I disagree that the first part, that we should stop focusing on reducing emissions in the west. I believe that they are interconnected and western emission reductions helps the goal of clean transitional economies and we need to do both anyway. I don't think we should stop focusing on reducing emissions, we should stop treating emissions as the problem. All those charts that are showing emissions per capita MISS THE POINT. Those types of measurements are prolific when measuring what sorts of action we should take on climate and the idea that once a country reduces it's emissions we've "solved" the problem there is a joke. I'll take any western plan for carbon seriously when it takes into account the past 120 years of emissions. quote:Likewise, the developing world should be the ones taking the risks on novel technology. Absolutely loving not. quote:Besides, the fact of the matter is everyone needs to get to a zero carbon economy and we need the activism infrastructure to be able to advocate for transitional economies for the developing world and post carbon economies in the developed at the same time. Nope, at least in the US we need to get to a negative carbon economy to the point where we can offset the carbon required for those nations to industrialize. And then beyond that to offset the 120 years of emissions that are currently loving up the planet. quote:Indeed, that's a big reason why people consider Paris to be such a milestone. Too little too late at this point
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I don't think we should stop focusing on reducing emissions, we should stop treating emissions as the problem. All those charts that are showing emissions per capita MISS THE POINT. Those types of measurements are prolific when measuring what sorts of action we should take on climate and the idea that once a country reduces it's emissions we've "solved" the problem there is a joke. I'll take any western plan for carbon seriously when it takes into account the past 120 years of emissions. Basicslly you don't believe in short term goals? Shifting from "increasing emissions year over year" to "decreasing emissions year over year" is a big step towards "negative emissions year over year." Is your complaint that by focusing on the short term goal we will fail to achieve the long term one? Realize that absolutely no one involved in these policies think they've solved climate. There is overwhelming recognition of the need to constantly tighten the noose. quote:Absolutely loving not. That was a typo. From context it seems pretty obvious I was arguing that the developed world should be paying for risky R&D. quote:Nope, at least in the US we need to get to a negative carbon economy to the point where we can offset the carbon required for those nations to industrialize. And then beyond that to offset the 120 years of emissions that are currently loving up the planet. But that plan doesn't make sense from an emissions perspective. We can't wait for the developed world to undo all their harm before the developing world engages in mitigation and adaption. Your plan would make things much worse for the people of the developing world than if they work on transitioning their economy now. I agree the developed world is going to have to the heavy lifting on negative emissions, that's why reducing emissions in the developed world now is a good thing. quote:Too little too late at this point That's not how climate works. It can always get worse. We need the framework it provides and we still can stop a lot of harm using it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Basicslly you don't believe in short term goals? Shifting from "increasing emissions year over year" to "decreasing emissions year over year" is a big step towards "negative emissions year over year." Is your complaint that by focusing on the short term goal we will fail to achieve the long term one? No I believe the goals should be framed in a way that actually accurately describes the problem as opposed to viewing everything through a lens that puts the onus on developing nations. quote:But that plan doesn't make sense from an emissions perspective. We can't wait for the developed world to undo all their harm before the developing world engages in mitigation and adaption. Your plan would make things much worse for the people of the developing world than if they work on transitioning their economy now. They are working on transitioning their economy. I agree that the air conditioner problem is worth solving, but the methods taken so far are woefully inadequate at best and imperialistic at worst. quote:That's not how climate works. It can always get worse. We need the framework it provides and we still can stop a lot of harm using it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:No I believe the goals should be framed in a way that actually accurately describes the problem as opposed to viewing everything through a lens that puts the onus on developing nations. Ok Hobbes.  My point is that Paris gives us the exact frame and lens you're demanding. It doesn't place the onus on developing nations. It provides a framework for developed nations to support developing nations transition. And most importantly it recognizes it is only the beginning and that tighter and tighter restrictions will be coming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That't not how society works. Once poo poo gets bad enough it collapses and we go back to the dark ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ok Hobbes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I disagree and I followed the Paris agreement pretty closely. I think it places an undue onus on developing nations. There are already frameworks for developed nations to support the transition of developing nations, this is just preparation for instituting a global climate policy that will most likely at the end of the day be enforced via force. Which parts are undo burdens on developing nations and how would you change them? I'd love to have a discussion on the good/bad/ugly of Paris rather than ranting about who is the most cynical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Which parts are undo burdens on developing nations and how would you change them? I mean the big one is they are imposing a treaty that has no mechanism of enforcement. IE they can use political pressure to ensure the treaty is followed overseas while having no larger power checking their own internal progress. Nothing about the Paris agreement was binding, I see it as little more than the developed nations finally admitting that climate change is a thing, but if you think any meaningful impacts came from it I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mean the big one is they are imposing a treaty that has no mechanism of enforcement. IE they can use political pressure to ensure the treaty is followed overseas while having no larger power checking their own internal progress. Nothing about the Paris agreement was binding, I see it as little more than the developed nations finally admitting that climate change is a thing, but if you think any meaningful impacts came from it I'd love to hear it. Well the climate fund becoming an official international instrument is a big one. Another one is the fact it creates the framework for future binding negotiations is a huge deal even if it feels unsatisfactory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well the climate fund becoming an official international instrument is a big one. Another one is the fact it creates the framework for future binding negotiations is a huge deal even if it feels unsatisfactory. It's just hard to look at the progress being made alongside the acceleration of the things causing the problem and conclude that it's anything but "too little, too late". I know that it can always get worse, but there is a point where it stops mattering how we plan to deal with things through current legal frameworks because they simply won't survive the changes we're already signed up for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mean the big one is they are imposing a treaty that has no mechanism of enforcement. IE they can use political pressure to ensure the treaty is followed overseas while having no larger power checking their own internal progress. Nothing about the Paris agreement was binding, I see it as little more than the developed nations finally admitting that climate change is a thing, but if you think any meaningful impacts came from it I'd love to hear it. Western countries cannot even get good bottom up estimates of emissions and for many gasses top down estimates are used, but by their nature are too late. So forget about enforcement, even grabbing meaningful data from developing countries is impossible. The economic gain from cooking books is too great (or influencing 'approved estimation methodology in legislation to become completely point less)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
But granular regulations of emissions isn't the only way to reduce emissions. Renewable mandates and effiency mandates are two examples* of vastly easier to enforce regulatory structures that reduce emissions. *these are examples of specific sub-regulations and are not intended to represent an entire climate policy geez.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But granular regulations of emissions isn't the only way to reduce emissions. Renewable mandates and effiency mandates are two examples* of vastly easier to enforce regulatory structures that reduce emissions. Yeah again, if you look at the progress being made to fix things versus the acceleration of the problems driving the causes, what makes you think that these legal frameworks you're discussing will survive the next 20 or 30 years? Is there ever a point at which we can say "well, we can try to fix things as best we can, but we're hosed in the long run"? I get that it's not a productive or helpful thought, but can you deny the reality? How many years are we going to have to hear "we need to act now or it's too late" before we realize it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah again, if you look at the progress being made to fix things versus the acceleration of the problems driving the causes, what makes you think that these legal frameworks you're discussing will survive the next 20 or 30 years? Is there ever a point at which we can say "well, we can try to fix things as best we can, but we're hosed in the long run"? I get that it's not a productive or helpful thought, but can you deny the reality? How many years are we going to have to hear "we need to act now or it's too late" before we realize it's too late. Because in the economies with these regulations the rate of emissions isn't increasing? We're even already see economies meet their regulatory goals ahead of schedule and respond by making their goals harder. Because I don't believe we have hit a point where we can mitigate no more harm so we should keep trying even if our output isn't "good enough"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah again, if you look at the progress being made to fix things versus the acceleration of the problems driving the causes, what makes you think that these legal frameworks you're discussing will survive the next 20 or 30 years? Is there ever a point at which we can say "well, we can try to fix things as best we can, but we're hosed in the long run"? I get that it's not a productive or helpful thought, but can you deny the reality? How many years are we going to have to hear "we need to act now or it's too late" before we realize it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:I guess what you're really asking is how we decide it's too late and start working on surviving an unsurvivable situation? What would you do when we decide it can't be mended anymore, how would you focus efforts? Do the richest people get together and build their Ark, constructed to weather the disasters and bristling with weaponry? Honestly I don't know, nobody does, and anyone who says they do is an idiot or liar. That's the problem with this, we're basically signing up for a metric fuckton of negative effects without entirely understanding what they are or how bad they will be outside of "we're in the sixth extinction crisis on the planet earth in the past 3.5 billions years" poo poo is going to hell faster than we can figure out why or how. Hell, the mass migrations alone we're looking at are probably enough to destabilize society to the point of being literally unable to act. Chances are we're just looking at a small view of a much bigger problem, which is that complex systems have a very difficult time adapting to changing conditions if they are built on the idea that those conditions are a different way. That's kind of a race civilization is always having, and it appears we're starting to lose. That should be worrying to anyone who has a basic understanding of the history of human civilizations. People don't want to admit that on some level all those studies about the deer having no wolves to control their population leading to population/resource consumption boom leading to population crash as they destroy the environment that led to the original success. Human's are smarter and are dealing with this on a much more complex and complicated level, but if you back out far enough and look at the problem as a global one, it's hard to see how we're ever going to stop it. Trabisnikof posted:Because I don't believe we have hit a point where we can mitigate no more harm so we should keep trying even if our output isn't "good enough" Ok so I guess my question to you is, does that point exist, and where is it if it does? I mean, could industrialized society survive a 10 degree celsius increase in the next 100 years? Probably not. Unless you're willing to take the position that it can be too late, why is there ever incentive to act? NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
It's so hopelessly naive to think that anyone's going to stick to these agreements when not doing so provides massive economic advantages. Cheating will always be the best option, just like any Tragedy of the Commons situation.Trabisnikof posted:Because in the economies with these regulations the rate of emissions isn't increasing? Most of this is due to the world economically stagnating, not regulation. call to action fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Honestly I don't know, nobody does, and anyone who says they do is an idiot or liar. That's the problem with this, we're basically signing up for a metric fuckton of negative effects without entirely understanding what they are or how bad they will be outside of "we're in the sixth extinction crisis on the planet earth in the past 3.5 billions years" poo poo is going to hell faster than we can figure out why or how. Hell, the mass migrations alone we're looking at are probably enough to destabilize society to the point of being literally unable to act. Chances are we're just looking at a small view of a much bigger problem, which is that complex systems have a very difficult time adapting to changing conditions if they are built on the idea that those conditions are a different way. That's kind of a race civilization is always having, and it appears we're starting to lose. That should be worrying to anyone who has a basic understanding of the history of human civilizations. There is the incentive to prevent harm even if we aren't approaching an apocalyptic cliff. To answer your question about when will be too late, I have no idea and I think it is hopelessly naive for someone to claim they know that line. There are too many factors and it is better to error on the side of trying too long than giving up too early. call to action posted:It's so hopelessly naive to think that anyone's going to stick to these agreements when not doing so provides massive economic advantages. Cheating will always be the best option, just like any Tragedy of the Commons situation. That's why it is such a big deal that is a global agreement. Like under your logic the CFC treaties wouldn't have worked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:47
|
|