|
Forever_Peace posted:Nope, still meaningful. Yeah it's a major bummer we probably aren't going to meet the 2C goal, but 4C and 6C warming scenarios are so much worse it almost boggles the mind. I don't disagree with that and should have been more clear that a carbon tax in 10 years is of course still preferable to none at all. Things can always, always be worse. But there is still a lot of magical thinking going on that beginning efforts now will mean that things are not going to get very bad already.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Mozi posted:I don't disagree with that and should have been more clear that a carbon tax in 10 years is of course still preferable to none at all. Things can always, always be worse. But there is still a lot of magical thinking going on that beginning efforts now will mean that things are not going to get very bad already. Indeed, at these summits not only should carbon tax frameworks be setup, but also a relief framework. Some agreed upon plan in place when a nearby city collapses to handle the situation, instead of hastily building a fence and chasing refugees down railroad tracks Instead they pretend their carbon tax or X C degree goal is going to avoid any catastrophic result which is not even policy impossible, but physically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Forgive me because I'm not a climatologist, but I thought the reason 2C was chosen as a watershed moment was once we pass 2C, we may lose control of the entire warming process due to positive feedback loops? If that's the case, then a treaty that still gets us over 2C, while being a positive in absolute terms, isn't a very effective treaty
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:Forgive me because I'm not a climatologist, but I thought the reason 2C was chosen as a watershed moment was once we pass 2C, we may lose control of the entire warming process due to positive feedback loops? If that's the case, then a treaty that still gets us over 2C, while being a positive in absolute terms, isn't a very effective treaty Because the treaty wasn't meant to be a solution to climate change and no one involved thinks it is. Instead it is just one of many treaties we will need. But the fact we got together and did this so quickly after Paris went into effect is a good sign. Someone will now jump on me for daring to see something positive when it doesn't solve climate change, but I think they fail to understand the scope of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because the treaty wasn't meant to be a solution to climate change and no one involved thinks it is. Instead it is just one of many treaties we will need. But the fact we got together and did this so quickly after Paris went into effect is a good sign. I mean sure, it's a good thing. I don't disagree. But negotiating and signing treaties takes resources and it seems a little weird to spend that time and energy negotiating a treaty that doesn't actually address the major existential crisis facing humanity in the next 20-30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:I mean sure, it's a good thing. I don't disagree. The major hurdle internationally is to get everyone to acknowledge that there is a problem and that we all need to work together to solve it. Until we come to that understanding major change cannot happen. These treaties are the start of that happening. If we went just based off of the evidence rather than having to face political realities we would have been addressing this problem in the 70s or 80s instead of now. Unfortunately we don't live in that reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The major hurdle internationally is to get everyone to acknowledge that there is a problem and that we all need to work together to solve it. Until we come to that understanding major change cannot happen. These treaties are the start of that happening. How much time do you think we have left? If these are 'the start' how long does it take before we really address the major problem? 5 years? Maybe 10? At some point, the situation isn't "we can act while we still have time." I think we passed that point probably a decade ago. I'm not saying negotiating emissions is useless and we should stop or anything like that. I'm saying that we should be using our time and energy to do the most with what time we have left, and we don't have much time left to conduct these negotiations in relatively peaceful, stable times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:I mean sure, it's a good thing. I don't disagree. I'm glad you think it's a good thing, some posters consider it meaningless or bad. But why would you feel a treaty that ends the use of one of the most climate damaging set of chemicals, thus stopping potential warming before 2100, not addressing part of climate change? I don't imagine that they could have just sat down for another week and banged out a treaty that solves climate change. The international process doesn't really work like that. But don't imagine this is the only treaty under negotiation about climate right now. Specifically this is a modification of Montreal that deals specifically with refrigeratants and is already signed and binding and included a mechanism to ban replacement chemicals if they turn out to be bad in another way. So that's why this meeting tackled this specific set of chemicals: they have short term climate harm and we can act to ban them now within existing frameworks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because the treaty wasn't meant to be a solution to climate change and no one involved thinks it is. Instead it is just one of many treaties we will need. But the fact we got together and did this so quickly after Paris went into effect is a good sign. I think what's happening is a bunch of people talking past each other because they disagree on what emotion to react with after the agreement. It seems there's two reactions: 1. The agreement is good because it makes a small difference, and we need to do more things to stop climate change 2. The agreement is bad because it makes a small difference, and we need to do more things to stop climate change This small difference in reaction is almost completely irrelevant, since both are calling for further action and acknowledge that, obviously, this single agreement-- like literally any single action--will not solve climate change. People are far too quick to attack each other and assume the worst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I think what's happening is a bunch of people talking past each other because they disagree on what emotion to react with after the agreement. It seems there's two reactions: Nailed it
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I think what's happening is a bunch of people talking past each other because they disagree on what emotion to react with after the agreement. It seems there's two reactions: Forever_Peace posted:Nailed it Agreed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Nailed it Precisely and well put. Particularly in this thread people go for each others' throats over minutiae because That's Internet Posting, and that phenomenon combined with the legitimately difficult perception of and emotions involved in coming to grips with the existential threat of AGW leads to some (and I'm not accusing or blaming here) wild reactions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
It really seems like if anyone was taking this seriously they would be massively doubling down on backing and implementing large scale meaningful carbon sequestration (and not the fake biofuels carbon sequestration nonsense), and instead we are still closing our eyes and hoping we can somehow continue to do as little as possible and foist as much of that onto other people as possible, because carbon sequestration is hard and expensive and not even worth talking about because of it even though it is literally the only option left that doesn't result in rapid, massive amounts of warming and soon.Squalid posted:I'm not sure why so many people seem to think any kind of collective action on climate change is simply an impossible pipe dream. It's like they heard the parable of the tragedy of the commons one time and decided the problem was literally insurmountable. Any kind of meaningful collective action certainly seems to be, and its a reasonable view since it's been failing for decades and continues to fail, and the best we have managed is occasionally convincing someone not to punch an additional hole in the side of our sinking vessel, and half the time they do it anyway. Even those victories largely rest on the solutions being convenient - if other cooling options weren't abundant and almost as readily available, I doubt even most western countries would have bothered to ban the worst poo poo. Every advance we have made so far on the issue has been primarily technological. meaningful collective action has already failed, except insofar as its been capable of helping support technological solutions that weren't too expensive and didn't really burden anyone, which, I mean, that's great and I am glad we at least managed that, but it can barely be called collective action, and real solutions are gonna take more than collective action - they are going to take collective sacrifice, and that's never going to happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Large scale CCS isn't happening anytime soon and doubling down on it would be a terrible idea since it's expensive and not guaranteed to ever mature to a meaningful level. It's almost as much of a hail mary as just hoping that some magical geoengineering technology will come along. Our options to "solve" this problem in a way that will actually minimize damage (as opposed to simply salvage things so that we aren't also loving over the people of the next century) boil down to drastically reducing consumption in developed nations or somehow forcing developing nations to take one for the team that already hosed them over and curtail emissions. On the bright side, the former will probably happen over time anyway as the effects of climate change impede economic growth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Yep. There is no long term plan that doesn't revolve around a post carbon economy. The only way to get there is a relentless and unceasing push against complacency. Cynicism is yielding to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Edit: Summary, apparently most of the people in this thread have already given up and are content to play make believe, because anything that could help is infeasible and impossible so its fine to stick to things that wont. So i guess therea not much point in talking about it if thats where we stand, haha. Thanks thread for helping reach this level of comfort with the inevitable. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Nobody in this thread has given up. The problem is that reliance on the sorts of hypothetical solutions you're advocating is the moral hazard. If we behave as if future technology will suck emissions out of the air at mass scale, it decreases the pressure for countries to act rationally with their choices NOW (ie do the hard work of reducing emissions). They can play with house money. It'd be awesome if a technology did come along that helped significantly, but it's a gamble in which you could easily end up losing everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
What I find peculiar is that everyone here seems to have accepted 2C change as happening but because we're attempting (poorly) to prevent a 6C scenario, everything is fine. everythings-fine-on-fire.jpg What's even funnier is that even the climate change scientist credited with first proposing for a 2C max target in the 70s is now saying 2C is too much. Folks like trabisniskof strike me as suggesting two bullets in the head is good because hey, at least it's not 6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
The level of discussion in this thread is a p good example of why it's hard to coordinate on real action
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:The level of discussion in this thread is a p good example of why it's hard to coordinate on real action Yuuuuup
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:What I find peculiar is that everyone here seems to have accepted 2C change as happening but because we're attempting (poorly) to prevent a 6C scenario, everything is fine. More like I'd rather play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in the revolver instead of 6. And any movement we can make towards fewer bullets is good even if doesn't get us to put the gun down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:More like I'd rather play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in the revolver instead of 6. Says the guy in favor of clean coal and is anti-nuclear power generation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:What I find peculiar is that everyone here seems to have accepted 2C change as happening but because we're attempting (poorly) to prevent a 6C scenario, everything is fine. You haven't spent much time here. This is the biggest, saddest, most depressed place I know of on the internet. Everything is bad at this point, its just some things are worse than others. If you would suggest implementing a plan to keep warming under 2C, I would think you're naive and don't appreciate the scale of the problem, at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Nah, i think stuff like limited nuclear exchanges and reproductive limits are more realistic solutions but apparently people prefer "let's use energy saving light bulbs" faux solutions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Nobody in this thread has given up. The problem is that reliance on the sorts of hypothetical solutions you're advocating is the moral hazard. If we behave as if future technology will suck emissions out of the air at mass scale, it decreases the pressure for countries to act rationally with their choices NOW (ie do the hard work of reducing emissions). They can play with house money. It'd be awesome if a technology did come along that helped significantly, but it's a gamble in which you could easily end up losing everything. You've got the right idea of things, but you've got it exactly backwards. This "reducing emissions" bullshit is the moral hazard - it's the easy but ultimately meaningless solution that frees politicians up from having to pursue the difficult work of developing the technological and industrial capacity to actually make a difference and let's them shift all the blame to poor third world countries, and it's something we aren't even accomplishing even we celebrate every small "victory" that actually gets us further away from the goal. You say you haven't given up, but it's pretty obvious you've at least closed your eyes to reality. You're arguing against "relying on a hypothetical" and "gambling" while advocating we limit our activities to things we know don't work and won't work to make things better and at best will make things infinitely worse at a slower rate, because anything with even a chance of making things better isn't worth pursuing because it's a gamble. That is giving up. shrike82 posted:Nah, i think stuff like limited nuclear exchanges and reproductive limits are more realistic solutions but apparently people prefer "let's use energy saving light bulbs" faux solutions. How is this in any way a solution, though? It's still just 'things get constantly worse but slower' territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:Forgive me because I'm not a climatologist, but I thought the reason 2C was chosen as a watershed moment was once we pass 2C, we may lose control of the entire warming process due to positive feedback loops? If that's the case, then a treaty that still gets us over 2C, while being a positive in absolute terms, isn't a very effective treaty Not to dismiss this possibility which is real and frightening, but last time I checked there was a lot of uncertainty regarding climate feedback loops. The truth is we don't really know exactly how the climate will react, which is one reason why it's so important to keep carbon concentrations as low as possible, we don't really know where the limit is before something catastrophic happens. I've noticed Arkane uses a very interesting approach to his climate denialism that I never see used anywhere else, where he systematically understates the uncertainty in our understanding of the climate-in his world trends were linear, accurately measured and clearly predictable. The truth is there are terrible risks that we cannot afford to gamble on, and we frequently find serious problems in the science that we had failed to account for. The kind of errors in our understanding of the climate that necessitated the revisions this year of sea-surface and some satellite temperature records are not accounted for in this mindset, at great risk to the environment and even civilization. However there exists among many in the climate activist community an opposite personality, who systematically over estimates the risks of climate catastrophes. Every new threat is treated as a certainty, regardless of how preliminary the data or limited our understanding. All the risks have to be addressed yes, but we should understand that even in worse case scenarios not every calamity must come to pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:How is this in any way a solution, though? It's still just 'things get constantly worse but slower' territory. Look up-thread at folks who talk big about climate activism but go denialist when faced with the statement that not having children is the biggest singular thing they can achieve in their lifetimes to reduce their carbon footprint. Or at a societal level for a polity to impose restrictions on reproductive rights. The one child policy in China, now dead, is probably the single government policy that has had the most impact on climate change. I'm not going to give up my kids are you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
If you're options are "slightly delay loss" and "slight chance of a win", you should be throwing all of your resources at the second and paying attention to the first only to the extent that it increases your chances of succeeding with the second (which means there will still be quite a bit of the first, but acting as if that is somehow enough is insane)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:[quote="GlyphGryph" post="465419277"] Reducing emissions is a moral hazzard? You guys should stop and listen to yourselves for a second, you aren't making any drat sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Squalid posted:However there exists among many in the climate activist community an opposite personality, who systematically over estimates the risks of climate catastrophes. Every new threat is treated as a certainty, regardless of how preliminary the data or limited our understanding. All the risks have to be addressed yes, but we should understand that even in worse case scenarios not every calamity must come to pass. LOL, yeah those climatologists are always overstating things
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:LOL, yeah those climatologists are always overstating things Climatologists generally aren't saying "everything is hosed, go commit suicide right now".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Man James Hansen saying 2C is too much is certainly equivalent to "go commit suicide right now" Exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Man James Hansen saying 2C is too much is certainly equivalent to "go commit suicide right now" You saying "we need population control and nuclear exchanges" is equivalent to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You've got the right idea of things, but you've got it exactly backwards. This "reducing emissions" bullshit is the moral hazard - it's the easy but ultimately meaningless solution that frees politicians up from having to pursue the difficult work of developing the technological and industrial capacity to actually make a difference and let's them shift all the blame to poor third world countries, and it's something we aren't even accomplishing even we celebrate every small "victory" that actually gets us further away from the goal. Cool. I literally just posted a paper from Science that discusses the moral hazard of Carbon capture reliance on exhaustive detail. But hey, maybe they'd be interested in hearing your Actually I'm just going to spare the thread more snark and just avail of myself of the ignore button. Sorry, I'll check back in a few months from now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Look up-thread at folks who talk big about climate activism but go denialist when faced with the statement that not having children is the biggest singular thing they can achieve in their lifetimes to reduce their carbon footprint. Or at a societal level for a polity to impose restrictions on reproductive rights. The one child policy in China, now dead, is probably the single government policy that has had the most impact on climate change. It's kind of weird how you appear to be using the word denialist like a slur. Trabisnikof hasn't made any statements remotely reminiscent of climate denialism, even if I still think his position regarding the effect of personal family planning is false. What's your deal anyway. You haven't really made any coherent arguments in this thread, you're just kind of flailing angrily about without any discernible purpose
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You saying "we need population control and nuclear exchanges" is equivalent to that. Looking at Syria, I think we're already in the midst of GCC-driven conflict so too late. But let's go back to magitech CCS solutions that you're fond of
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Looking at Syria, I think we're already in the midst of GCC-driven conflict so too late. So nuking Syria would prevent climate change, good to know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's kind of weird how you appear to be using the word denialist like a slur. Trabisnikof hasn't made any statements remotely reminiscent of climate denialism, even if I still think his position regarding the effect of personal family planning is false. No I take issue with someone being pro-coal and anti-nuke pretending to have a solution for GCC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Cool. I literally just posted a paper from Science that discusses the moral hazard of Carbon capture reliance on exhaustive detail. But hey, maybe they'd be interested in hearing your Nooo don't leave me with them... At least the suicidally depressed guy seems to have left or at least stopped posting his fantasies about self-euthanization clinics
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
What Of all the things to call Trabisnikof want to call him pro-coal? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:24
|
|