|
Fangz posted:Then you've moved the goalposts a lot from that 75% figure you mentioned. I didn't move the goalposts, you did. Explicitly. The entire argument centers on what countries should be included under the label "third world" or "poor" or "developing" and I gave you a more permissive definition that excludes countries like Chile, Mexico, and Russia, (countries that are all going to have to tighten their belts under this regime, keep in mind), and then pointed out all these countries together still don't equal a majority of carbon output. They do, however, have a vast majority of global wealth. The example you give of European vs Chinese per capita carbon output is actually really illustrative: Europe can afford to emit less carbon per capita while maintaining a higher standard of living than China precisely because of development. Europe's renewable and nuclear power usage as much a function of its wealth as its political will. Maybe China can deploy similar technologies given its current developmental state but they're massively ahead of even their closest competitor in India and I can't imagine the poorest countries being able to replicate such a (hypothetical) result on their own. Also, India alone is hardly a "tiny" fraction of emissions. It's 15% just by itself. There are a lot of places like Africa that emit a tiny fraction of global carbon but my point is that these are the countries that are most in need of development, including increased energy usage.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I didn't move the goalposts, you did. Explicitly. The entire argument centers on what countries should be included under the label "third world" or "poor" or "developing" and I gave you a more permissive definition that excludes countries like Chile, Mexico, and Russia, (countries that are all going to have to tighten their belts under this regime, keep in mind), and then pointed out all these countries together still don't equal a majority of carbon output. They do, however, have a vast majority of global wealth. The example you give of European vs Chinese per capita carbon output is actually really illustrative: Europe can afford to emit less carbon per capita while maintaining a higher standard of living than China precisely because of development. Europe's renewable and nuclear power usage as a much a function of its wealth as its political will. Maybe China can deploy similar technologies given its current developmental state but they're massively ahead of even their closest competitor in India and I can't imagine the poorest countries being able to replicate such a (hypothetical) result on their own. Please restate what you are trying to argue because I'm pretty loving sure it's changed. Are you weirdly convinced that people don't think it'd take money and technology transfers to get China etc to improve their emissions efficiency? India's emissions is 6.5%, not 15%. quote:Not really, quality of life is to a large part of function of wealth, and part of that wealth is in energy. High-energy services like access to heating and air conditioning, washing machines and dryers, and of course automobiles, are extremely important to quality of life and in developing societies they're among the first technologies adopted by emerging middle classes. There's really only so much blood you can wring from a stone and trying to aim for quality of life without wealth, including energy wealth, is always going to be a dead end. Luckily doing so is not necessary. quote:Look at the discussion that spawned this. Paradoxish was arguing that the solution to climate change is going to require reduced consumption on the part of first worlders, and, as an unspoken corollary, a fairly strict ceiling on the development of the third world as well. No, the opposite is true, the corollary is that we should make the third world, this time including China, both richer and more developed so that they reduce their consumption and emissions. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Also, no, turning into China is not, in fact, the only route of international development. Consider that China turned from way below the global average to above Europe in emissions only in the last decade, when their living standards had already improved considerably previously. "Considerably" is one way to put it but in the previous decade Chinese GDP per capita has almost doubled. That development, the largest in China's 3000-year history, coincided with a similarly unprecedented rise in carbon emissions. It's useless to deny the relationship between energy and development.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Please restate what you are trying to argue because I'm pretty loving sure it's changed. Are you weirdly convinced that people don't think it'd take money and technology transfers to get China etc to improve their emissions efficiency? You're right on the India numbers there, though I'd still argue that's a hardly insignificant percentage. Anyway no my argument hasn't changed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're right on the India numbers there, though I'd still argue that's a hardly insignificant percentage. Anyway no my argument hasn't changed. Let me ask again, why is there a 'corollary' that reduced consumption for the first world requires 'strict limits' on the development of ~the third world~ when we have established that higher levels of development can reduce consumption and emissions? Does not imply that reduced consumption for the first world would work very well with a program to spur faster technological development and wealth transfers to the third world, to bring them up to European levels and reduce their consumption? EDIT: Your argument 100% relies on the idea that China is literally the only model for development of poorer states. Don't you feel this idea is a bit tenuous considering you are arguing based on a single data point? Especially because the China model will not likely be available to these other countries. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Let me ask again, why is there a 'corollary' that reduced consumption for the first world requires 'strict limits' on the development of ~the third world~ when we have established that higher levels of development can reduce consumption and emissions? Does not imply that reduced consumption for the first world would work very well with a program to spur faster technological development and wealth transfers to the third world, to bring them up to European levels and reduce their consumption? It will and does spur faster technological development in the first world, as well as the deployment of expensive technologies like nuclear power (which unfortunately much of the first world is now trying to get rid of) that poor countries lack the capital to develop. I don't think it'll spur much wealth transfer at all, and instead the focus will be on preventing development in the third world outside of countries like China and probably India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It will and does spur faster technological development in the first world, as well as the deployment of expensive technologies like nuclear power (which unfortunately much of the first world is now trying to get rid of) that poor countries lack the capital to develop. I don't think it'll spur much wealth transfer at all, and instead the focus will be on preventing development in the third world outside of countries like China and probably India. Show me where Paradoxish advocated preventing development in poorer countries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: Your argument 100% relies on the idea that China is literally the only model for development of poorer states. Don't you feel this idea is a bit tenuous considering you are arguing based on a single data point? Especially because the China model will not likely be available to these other countries. China isn't the only model, but the only developmental model is industrialization and the only countries that have achieved it have done so by emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. A map of historical greenhouse gas emission and current GDP match up pretty well, with the main exception being Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:China isn't the only model, but the only developmental model is industrialization and the only countries that have achieved it have done so by emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. A map of historical greenhouse gas emission and current GDP match up pretty well, with the main exception being Russia. International development is not a game of civ where you need to research steam engines and diesel engines and run them for a hundred years before you are allowed solar power and fuel cells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Show me where Paradoxish advocated preventing development in poorer countries. I never said or implied he did. I'm saying it's a more realistic scenario than rich countries turning around from centuries of exploiting poor countries and developing them instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Fangz posted:International development is not a game of civ where you need to research steam engines and diesel engines and run them for a hundred years before you are allowed solar power and fuel cells. I'm not saying it is. It's a matter of cost and infrastructure. Mali has hectares upon hectares of desert that would be prime real estate for solar, but lacks the capital to purchase such an installation, the industry to produce it, and the personnel to operate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I never said or implied he did. I'm saying it's a more realistic scenario than rich countries turning around from centuries of exploiting poor countries and developing them instead. You said that rich countries reducing their consumption leads, as a corollary to strict restrictions on development of poor countries. *NOW* you're arguing that suppressing development of poor countries will just happen? So like, if rich countries *didn't* reduce their consumption, this wouldn't imply any more exploitation of poor countries because????? One of the benefits of rich countries reducing their consumption is actually precisely a reduction in the exploitation of poor countries because there will be less need to steal their resources. Historically yeah, actually there's pretty substantial technology and wealth sharing with poor countries - your example of China is one, Russia is another, and the difference would be what technology is shared. And in a regime where we are trying to cut global emissions, it would be in the rich countries' own best interests to share clean energy/energy efficiency technology and invest in their construction. Because they'd know that sharing this tech would reduce their own need to cut consumption. quote:I'm not saying it is. It's a matter of cost and infrastructure. Mali has hectares upon hectares of desert that would be prime real estate for solar, but lacks the capital to purchase such an installation, the industry to produce it, and the personnel to operate it. There's a shitload of possible options that doesn't involve 'oh we turn into China'. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They can buy the solar panels from China and it'll soon be cheaper than fossil fuels. Or they can import the electricity from the solar panels run by their neighbours. Or some rich western dude can go, "hey cool, you have a resource there in that land, I'll build a solar plant there and I'll just take 50% profits." They'll burn fossil fuels, like the majority of the first world does (Exceptions for Nuclear and Hydro), because its cheaper and reliable and everyone likes reliable power. If we want the third world to use solar power, we have to firstly lead by example. And no where in the first world is any country getting more than 10% of their electricity from solar. There are very very very serious challenges to having wind and solar power as large parts of a countries energy mix. We haven't even come remotely close to solving them. And until we demonstrate how it can be done we shouldn't be advocating to much poorer countries to deal with these challenges, who do not have the skills or resources that the first world has.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:They'll burn fossil fuels, like the majority of the first world does (Exceptions for Nuclear and Hydro), because its cheaper and reliable and everyone likes reliable power. Germany gets 7% of their electricity from solar. On ideal days they run almost 100% on renewable power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Do some people in this thread really believe in a bloody red-green revolution to overthrow our capitalist overlords and violently depopulate the earth through a lottery is the only effective means of addressing climate change? This thread is funny. There needs to be a carbon tax without exemptions and an expansive change in farm subsidies and tax breaks generally. International agreements and supply side manipulation of energy prices would also help. Because of the politics this is probably going to end up an engineering problem, which would be expensive but I think is today already within our ability to address--even if it's just a last ditch effort of throwing sulfur into the atmosphere. So far I don't have any reason to believe that there will be a Great Carbon-Dioxygenation Event, am I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
CyclicalAberration posted:There needs to be a carbon tax without exemptions and an expansive change in farm subsidies and tax breaks generally. International agreements and supply side manipulation of energy prices would also help. Because of the politics this is probably going to end up an engineering problem, which would be expensive but I think is today already within our ability to address--even if it's just a last ditch effort of throwing sulfur into the atmosphere. So far I don't have any reason to believe that there will be a Great Carbon-Dioxygenation Event, am I wrong? I think climate nihilists are functionally denialists, but we could do everything you listed above tomorrow and we would still probably breach 2C warming. Market solutions are more likely than a green revolution, but not sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I don't really wanna be lumped in with Rime here, I don't care that much about other people at all, but I certainly am not losing sleep over the future viability of the Earth as a life-sustaining planet. If we all die in the next 200 years or if all that happens is our global civilization collapses and we're stuck in the semi-dark ages for a hundred years or something, this place will still have life on it. It's not a planetary crisis we're facing here, it's just a crisis with regards to the future of our own insignificant species. Obviously it is still physically possible to prevent such a thing from happening, but I don't think anybody seriously thinks it's politically possible, just that the only morally right thing to do is to keep trying, even if you're doomed to failure. Which is the part where people get mad at me for because I think it's not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I don't really wanna be lumped in with Rime here, I don't care that much about other people at all, but I certainly am not losing sleep over the future viability of the Earth as a life-sustaining planet. If we all die in the next 200 years or if all that happens is our global civilization collapses and we're stuck in the semi-dark ages for a hundred years or something, this place will still have life on it. It's not a planetary crisis we're facing here, it's just a crisis with regards to the future of our own insignificant species. You realize the >8K track is literally an apocalyptic ~90% species global extinction event, right? This is in fact a planetary crisis in regards to most life on this planet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
That's happened like 3 times before, in a few million years it'll be back to normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:That's happened like 3 times before, in a few million years it'll be back to normal. If you take that stance then nothing can be a planetary crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:If you take that stance then nothing can be a planetary crisis. this isn't a planetary crisis, its a humanity crisis. earth will be fine
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:That's happened like 3 times before, in a few million years it'll be back to normal. Whenever things seem too dark to carry on I try to think of this, and it really helps. As bad as it will get, we'll never be able to gently caress the planet worse than a meteor the size of Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Does that really matter, though? Are there people here who legitimately care about the planet, as an entity? My interest in the biosphere, besides some aesthetic appreciation, lies almost entirely on its value to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Germany gets 7% of their electricity from solar. On ideal days they run almost 100% on renewable power. If people were suggesting that third world countries try and get 7% of the electricity from solar, I wouldn't be complaining. The idea is that they should get 100% or such, its not reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Does that really matter, though? Clearly it matters to Rime. I, on the other hand, would prefer that humanity actually gave a poo poo and did something to prevent our own destruction, but that's simply not possible and not worth worrying about at this point. Which is why I'm just gonna do the best I can to live my life and be prepared for what's coming in the future, so I can at least live to see what happens. Honestly speaking, I would be pretty happy in the unlikely circumstance where about 7 billion people suddenly died, but I personally was one of the people who didn't die, because it would mean that the human race would keep going just fine, but also be well out of danger of catastrophic climate change for a pretty good amount of time, certainly for the rest of my life. It sounds pretty petty and first-world thinking and all that same stuff that people argue about, but don't forget that none of this theoretical nonsense discussion we have in here really matters as far as tangible effects on the world are concerned. My ideal scenario isn't any more likely than that of any optimistic thinkers in this thread. What's going to happen isn't good for anybody, but none of us are able to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
CyclicalAberration posted:Do some people in this thread really believe in a bloody red-green revolution to overthrow our capitalist overlords and violently depopulate the earth through a lottery is the only effective means of addressing climate change? This thread is funny. No, no one is seriously worried about pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that its actual presence beyond greenhouse effects becomes a threat to life on Earth. Market solutions like you suggest are absolutely vital in the short term, but the problem is that solutions that go far enough will be objectively bad for fossil fuel industries. A huge part of what makes this such a difficult problem is that even conservative actions generally don't have an upside for entities that make their money through emissions generating activities. It's hard to sugarcoat it when we literally need to tell companies that they aren't allowed to use the atmosphere as a free waste dump anymore and also get consumers to accept the costs that will be passed down to them. I really don't feel like making another huge post on this particular topic, but climate change absolutely will not come down to an engineering problem unless something drastically new comes along. Sulfur injection doesn't actually work because it's likely to change precipitation patterns sufficiently to lead to serious droughts in Africa and SE Asia. Even ignoring that, aerosol sulfates aren't an actual solution. You can offset warming for as long as you're doing it, but the instant you stop you end up with a rapid return to previous temperatures. There may come a time when a last ditch stopgap like that seems reasonable, but if we're still dumping carbon into the atmosphere then we're not really solving anything. There aren't any technological options that are economically and politically feasible, even as 11th hour saves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There aren't any technological options that are economically and politically feasible, even as 11th hour saves. Drones releasing tailored superbugs and fast-acting chemical weapons into the air of most major world cities simultaneously is a perfectly feasible option. Then you can carpet-nuke some shithole to get a little nuclear winter going to make up for the lack of albedo in the arctic. Boom. Done. We've bought some time to solve the problem on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
2017 Ice Status: Lookin' loving good   susan b buffering fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
This is in response to climate nihilism and melting ice:
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Hey did those scientist preserve the data,
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
This could mean the end of the banana daiquiri as we know it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Obviously it is still physically possible to prevent such a thing from happening,
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I think climate nihilists are functionally denialists, but we could do everything you listed above tomorrow and we would still probably breach 2C warming. Market solutions are more likely than a green revolution, but not sufficient. I think people who like to come up with buckets for other people like to turn every discussion into some kind of partisan game. There are no "climate nihilists" throwing "climate ferrets" into your "bathtub of reasonable climate change solutions". Stop using the term, it makes you sound like a climate douche.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
looks like someones climate jimmies were russled
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I think people who like to come up with buckets for other people like to turn every discussion into some kind of partisan game. There are no "climate nihilists" throwing "climate ferrets" into your "bathtub of reasonable climate change solutions". Do "climate deniers" next!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I think climate nihilists are functionally denialists, but we could do everything you listed above tomorrow and we would still probably breach 2C warming. Market solutions are more likely than a green revolution, but not sufficient. Market solutions are what we've got to look forward to right now, I think, barring a game-changer. It could be more interesting and effective than you'd think, though. If you subscribe to the argument that a big part of the Trump/Putin/Tillerson scheme is trying to wring as much value out of fossil fuels as possible before the market collapses, then what we're seeing are basically death throes. They're spending political capital on a fight that cannot be won, which they're waging on multiple fronts at once. Now's a good time to get organized and involved, though, since with a little luck, Trump's going to end up galvanizing the American left and center. Most of the poo poo he wants to do is political suicide, after all, and it's long past time that Americans as a culture remembered our roots. There isn't much we've ever gotten done as a nation that didn't involve demonstrations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:It's not a planetary crisis we're facing here, it's just a crisis with regards to the future of our own insignificant species. It's not "just a crisis with regards to the future of our own insignificant species", it's a crisis for the 7 billion PEOPLE already alive and the billions that will follow before an equilibrium is achieved in a few centuries. CyclicalAberration posted:There needs to be a carbon tax without exemptions A carbon tax without exemptions would either be too cheap to reduce the emissions of the rich, or too expensive for the poor to survive. What is needed is a rationing of energy, with everyone getting a small but adequate allowance, and energy use above that taxed on an aggressive ramping scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
In other news, fires are up 1000% in Chile this year compared to last year, and its been only 3 weeks! There will be nothing left by march. And yet the government wont invest in firefighting planes, not even 1, because lol gently caress you. We dont even pay firefighters, its all voluntary work. Need a new firetruck? Gotta go out on the street and beg for donations! Chile prides to be on the way to be a developed country, but sorry, I've been here for over 25 years and I can say its a 3rd world shithole. Probably not as bad as others, but not by much. edit: I think that sounded harsh, I do love the place, its a beautiful country with lots to see, but the people make it a shithole. El Laucha fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I think people who like to come up with buckets for other people like to turn every discussion into some kind of partisan game. There are no "climate nihilists" throwing "climate ferrets" into your "bathtub of reasonable climate change solutions". Climate Nihilism is a great term and it captures absolutely capitulation "I can't manage this so I won't" attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Rime posted:Chernobyl is one of the most ecologically vibrant places in Europe now, thanks to all the humans loving off. If only nuclear bombs were little compact chernobyls
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 13:04
|
|
