|
cat botherer posted:It's not a question of eliminating personal transport. It's eliminating the need for everyone to have a car, which is wildly wasteful in terms of land use, economic equity, resource usage, and ecological destruction. And that's not even touching climate change. The example of Singapore you gave are instructive here. Singapore has a world-class public transit system. Most people don't own cars. That's better than everyone owning cars. I'm on board with reducing car use, my point is that Singapore is probably the lower limit for car use. Targeting anything less than Singapore penetration of light vehicles is wishful thinking for the reasons given in my previous post. And to even get that far, you need to head off the "must be manufactured/grown here because transport is environmentally unfriendly" crew.
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I'm on board with reducing car use, my point is that Singapore is probably the lower limit for car use. Targeting anything less than Singapore penetration of light vehicles is wishful thinking for the reasons given in my previous post. In Singapore, cars are taxed heavily. It is state policy to discourage personal vehicle ownership. A Chinese compact costs six figures. There’s not a good reason for normal people there to have a car. Even though the number of cars is not zero, that’s still a huge win. However, they could still go lower. It takes more creativity, but it's possible. In America, of course getting to Singapore's level would be a huge achievement, and we should work towards that. If we had easier/less stupid vehicle rentals/sharing, that would help a lot right there. There’s a lot of people, at least in areas with good transit, that usually don’t need a car, but once in a while something comes up. Even if climate change didn’t exist, we should still want to keep personal vehicles to a minimum, and not base our society and built environment around them. Car dependency has huge public health implications. Poor walkability causes obesity. Car tire dust fucks up water quality. Land use caused by everyone needing vehicle storage wherever they may take their vehicles induces us to build huge parking lots and build too-wide streets so everyone can store their cars on public property. All of that asphalt causes even more toxic runoff. Car violence kills tens of thousands a year and disables many more. Children can’t safely play outside. It’s not great. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:How did that sentence end Leon Sumbitches posted:There's a marked difference between consuming a bicycle once and riding it daily for years and consuming an EV as a standard American consumer, leasing for a few years and moving on to the next. The externalities of the bikes true cost over time are reduced to the calories needed for my body, while a car will always be a part of car culture. Yes, they're both purchases but comparing them is apples to oranges because a car's lifetime cost will always be greater and with more externalities than micromobilities'. It's still consumerism. It's just that if you give people options and ones that emit less carbon or no carbon that are decent that is indeed buying your way into a green, net zero, etc. world. HookedOnChthonics posted:but absolutely, categorically, fossil fuel energy producers do not and would not ramp down production in response to decreased demand from ""traditional"" sectors--just find new customers for the fresh surplus. that's why you can't buy your way out and why electric cars don't do jack poo poo of anything in the grand scheme of things. If people stop buying gasoline for cars... who are they going to sell it too?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
Infinite growth got us into this problem and if we can't get past the idea of infinite growth, we will not survive it. If you jam posts by different people together you do in fact get contraindications! Sometimes people even talk about different things or emphasize different concepts or priorities. Amazing discovery friend.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:It's still consumerism. It's just that if you give people options and ones that emit less carbon or no carbon that are decent that is indeed buying your way into a green, net zero, etc. world.  but the term you are looking for is induced demand, and a large reduction in personal transportation related fuel consumption would--could--only lower the cost barrier to consumption of fossil fuels in any number of other sectors that use petrochemicals, or, uh, energy generally  one of the amazing things about fossil fuels is it's all the same stuff out of the ground and all the same infrastructure, already all built, to create a whole bunch of very useful outputs and you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think attacking any single one of those endpoints will reduce the overall level of throughput rather than just skewing the ratios towards another
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:
Plastics still require it (although it's much less than our use in transportation) HookedOnChthonics posted:you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think attacking any single one of those endpoints will reduce the overall level of throughput rather than just skewing the ratios towards another This is ignoring the costs. Oil production is predicted to go down over the next 50 years (assuming developing nations can be convinced to adopt greener tech). Not because there aren't still uses for it, just that those uses arnt profitable enough and drilling is expensive. Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 09:52 on May 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 09:06
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Plastics still require it (although it's much less than our use in transportation) Yes, but what is your point exactly? Plastics aren't exactly responsible for climate change. It's small fraction of emissions if any. While we should use much less plastic, it's still incredibly useful. Adenoid Dan posted:If you jam posts by different people together you do in fact get contraindications! Sometimes people even talk about different things or emphasize different concepts or priorities. Amazing discovery friend. I'm not jamming anything together. I'm responding to two posters who are discussing the same topic. If you look at Countries like Norway their transition to renewables along with EVs is phenomenal. It's totally doable to have consumers make their own decisions on what to purchase assuming good options exist in the first place. If you disagree, why? HookedOnChthonics posted:
Every oil and gas major from Exxon Mobil, to BP, to Total to whatever the hell in in any Country are all predicting peak oil in about the next decade. Nearly everything listed there is going to be replaced by batteries powered by renewables and nuclear OR some niche use case with hydrogen, biofuels, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 11:19
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Yes, but what is your point exactly? Plastics aren't exactly responsible for climate change. It's small fraction of emissions if any. While we should use much less plastic, it's still incredibly useful. You asked who else they would sell it to  And while plastics don't add as much to climate change, they are still huge polluters and causing untold damage to ocean life etc, that's when they don't just end up in open burn pits in the Philippines. Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 13:15 on May 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 13:09
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:You asked who else they would sell it to I asked, who would they sell gasoline too. If people drive EVs, who buys the gasoline? Mega Comrade posted:And while plastics don't add as much to climate change, they are still huge polluters and causing untold damage to ocean life etc, that's when they don't just end up in open burn pits in the Philippines. It does. I don't disagree.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
The US is also undergoing a variety of policy changes to reduce use of disposable plastics.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
In Belgium, the current way to go is to force new house owners to isolate their houses and to use heat pumps. You basically have 5 years if you buy an old house from the '60s to get it up to scratch, else you get something (fined? Maybe, if they actually check it). Cars are subsidized, meaning if you receive a work from car, you have to pay less taxes. This is soon to be only profitable when it's a "green" car. (instead of, you know, not subsidizing it in the first place). Still, this is something that will take 5 - 10 years to completely have an effect (which won't be enough to do something). Anyway, is that El Niño effect still going to screw us this or next year? Is this the year we pass the point of no return?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Punc posted:
Probably, but no one really knows. Punc posted:
That was 2000
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
Punc posted:Is this the year we pass the point of no return? There is no such thing, our choices are it either gets worse or stops getting worse. https://twitter.com/wang_seaver/status/1651720944812179456?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There is no such thing, our choices are it either gets worse or stops getting worse.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
There are tipping points but in the context of the earlier question there are not. In a way, it doesn't matter if they are or aren't tipping points. The more you emit, the worse it is. The whole point is to transition to a green economy as fast as possible. Even if we hit actual an "point" tomorrow, it's not like can just give up either. And it's not like we've hit any kind of tipping point where we are going to end up in some kind of Mad Max Era Hellscape.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
The anomalous ocean temperatures from the other week are now trending in the right direction. Still record high but at least it’s not some hellish “and now, a plateau” as it had been looking. https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1654085540235419649
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Punc posted:In Belgium, the current way to go is to force new house owners to isolate their houses and to use heat pumps. You basically have 5 years if you buy an old house from the '60s to get it up to scratch, else you get something (fined? Maybe, if they actually check it). Cars are subsidized, meaning if you receive a work from car, you have to pay less taxes. This is soon to be only profitable when it's a "green" car. (instead of, you know, not subsidizing it in the first place). In Belgium, the current way to go is to force new house owners to I made a small correction, the only way I know this is I am studying French, I just insulated my house and I wondered how to say "insulation" in French, turns out its "isolation". Other than that your English is perfect and better than my French. I support your governments strategy and wish that more governments would take this approach. I'm in favor of electrifying everything, or as much as possible and making that electricity without carbon. I suspect that the real driver for this is eliminating dependence on Russian gas and the environmental benefits are icing on the cake.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:In Belgium, the current way to go is to force new house owners to Ah yes, re-reading it, our government is indeed not forcing houses to stand alone  Solar panels are also very much being promoted. We have a nice little site (in Dutch) where we can monitor what the percentage is for that day from solar, wind (onshore) and wind (offshore) is https://apps.energiesparen.be/stroomvoorspeller, put against the energy demand of the day:  So yesterday we had 26,1 GWh solar (48,4 GWh including the wind turbines). Do other countries have stuff like this as well, a place where you can see if all the little things are contributing? Crosby B. Alfred posted:There are tipping points but in the context of the earlier question there are not. In a way, it doesn't matter if they are or aren't tipping points. The more you emit, the worse it is. The whole point is to transition to a green economy as fast as possible. Even if we hit actual an "point" tomorrow, it's not like can just give up either. This is fair, I was thinking too much black and white.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Punc posted:Ah yes, re-reading it, our government is indeed not forcing houses to stand alone  Germany does too but I don't have a link handy. Most of that gets aggregated onto a map here: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
Goddamn, France is clearly winning. How long do their reactors last before they need to be re-built?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Goddamn, France is clearly winning. How long do their reactors last before they need to be re-built?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
I think we're gonna be looking at an average retirement age of 60 - 80 years because they will be too valuable to retire and new ones are coming too slowly online. Unless SMRs change the equation drastically, or we just get better at handling big projects like these. Or I guess fantasy solutions like cheap, large scale energy storage become reality.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There is no such thing, our choices are it either gets worse or stops getting worse.  breakthrough institute again, huh?Suffice to say that MD “not a doctor” “twitter files” Shellenberger’s op-ed shop is not remotely considered credible to anyone except lobbyists for extraction industries: "“”harvard ethics dept” posted:While sometimes functioning as shadow universities, think tanks have been exposed as quasi lobbying organizations, with little funding transparency. Recent research has also pointed out that think tanks suffer from a lack of intellectual rigor. A case in point is the Breakthrough Institute run by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, which describes itself as a "progressive think tank." "“”la review of books”” posted:MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER WANTS US to believe environmentalists are impeding our ability to solve environmental problems. This has long been the position of Bay Area ecomodernists, who argue that technology and growth, not limits, will save the planet. Now, in his best-selling new book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Shellenberger goes further, claiming that climate change and species extinction are not terribly threatening anyway. Lest we infer that this means environmentalists are off the hook, since the problems they’re preventing from being solved aren’t even that dire, Shellenberger tells us that poverty is actually our most urgent threat, and environmentalists, by blocking industry and artificial technologies, are working to keep the poor forever poor. He is contemptuous of anti-nuclear activists as well, who fight against what he claims is the only source of energy that is “abundant, reliable, and inexpensive,” and able to “power our high-energy human civilization while reducing humankind’s environmental footprint.” Along with his newest organization, Environmental Progress, he has spent the last four years trying to save nuclear power plants as if they were endangered species.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Suffice to say that MD “not a doctor” “twitter files” Shellenberger’s op-ed shop is not remotely considered credible to anyone except lobbyists for extraction industries: Good thing that's not the author and really sad you have to resort to criticizing someone who was booted from the organization.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There is no such thing, our choices are it either gets worse or stops getting worse. This is pathetic, come the gently caress on. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Turns out if you completely debase any meaning behind the phrase "tipping point", then you don't have to worry about them at all and everything's just kinda chill and vibes
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Tipping point is the point at where climate change starts to effect white westerners.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Tipping point is the point at where climate change starts to effect white westerners. This but unironically, because by then it really will be too late.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Only destructive degrowth and the right people suffering can motivate (even the possibility of) legit global sustainability consensus. The more, and sooner, the better. The drug is taken, the OD is certain, let's just hope the patient lives. At work yesterday, someone told me cheerfully that it will be great to grow grapes and make wine in current North American tundra. Screaming internally, I had to agree that it would be pretty good for us in the very short term, and most people will think of it that way. We (as everyone ITT has at least enough food, electronic and electricity to post with)will hold everyone in the more vulnerable world under the rising water to float ourselves, and then complain these people don't paddle hard enough to support us. The right people won't suffer voluntarily. Policy makers are the those most motivated and positioned to avoid consequences, and capable of spinning disaster in their favor. It will be up to protestors, then terrorists, then armies, then legislators in the most successful states that rise from the ashes. If things get better at all, and the depopulation of climate dead zones doesn't just become accepted as the normal path to some kind of equilibrium. Serious question, does the Overton window even include enthusiastic climate terrorism yet, anywhere? I see Gretas and the odd blockade or non-destructive sabotage, but like actual motivated groups ready to do hard time or worse. I can't find anything. e. not advocating just curious. I know hot terrorism would probably be net counterproductive in current popular opinion. Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
I'm sure increasing energy prices will win you a whole lot allies, friends and persuade people to emit less...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I'm sure increasing energy prices will win you a whole lot allies, friends and persuade people to emit less... When that happens I will make a lot more money for even less effort. :letsrunthisshitintotheground: e. I will make even less friends by reminding that even the most doompilled self-described moralist ascetic is not really ready for the kind of immediate austerity that would be needed to limit to 1.5 degrees and then reverse. For everyone the line will be different. I decide not to drive and have a modest home but you can pry my GPU from my cold dead hands. Education and free time correlates directly to doomerism, and those are exactly the people who would reject even the austerity that is normal life in most places. Any level of 'elite', which can be as small as a one house landlord or a McDonalds clerk scowling at a homeless feels that they have earned their station. Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Only destructive degrowth and the right people suffering can motivate (even the possibility of) legit global sustainability consensus. The more, and sooner, the better. The drug is taken, the OD is certain, let's just hope the patient lives. You would have to convince people that destructive degrowth now will be better for their quality of life than the consequences of climate change later. I don't think blowing up infrastructure will get people to make that leap of logic - that's just forcing destructive degrowth on an unwilling populace.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:that's just forcing destructive degrowth on an unwilling populace. This will be the solution by default, but you're right, the time is not now. I am curious if enough functional people have crack-pinged enough to be violent at a scale larger that a soloist mass shooting over climate. Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 17:52 on May 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:At work yesterday, someone told me cheerfully that it will be great to grow grapes and make wine in current North American tundra. Screaming internally, I had to agree that it would be pretty good for us in the very short term, and most people will think of it that way. I have to wonder if thawed tundra is really fertile enough to grow grapes properly? It seems to me even the tunnel-visioned short term "benefits" will just turn to poo poo and then soon after be completely overshadowed by the horrible impacts on every other aspect of life. No point growing grapes for wine if everyone's fighting tooth and nail for potable water and scraps of food.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:I have to wonder if thawed tundra is really fertile enough to grow grapes properly? The Russians seem to think they’ll grow grain in their thawed permafrost.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Education and free time correlates directly to doomerism, and those are exactly the people who would reject even the austerity that is normal life in most places. Any level of 'elite', which can be as small as a one house landlord or a McDonalds clerk scowling at a homeless feels that they have earned their station. Misunderstanding of economics, industrialized society and heavily biased politics lead to doomerism. Command economics have done the same if not more environmental damage than markets.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The Russians seem to think they’ll grow grain in their thawed permafrost. Don't dismiss that too quickly. Good luck with vineyards in the Canadian arctic. But Siberia is a huge place, and compared to the North American equivalent, the winters are colder but the summers are hotter. Its not cold winters that is the main limit to biological productivity but rather the lack of consistent warmth. That means that compared to the Canadian or Alaskan arctic, the soils in Siberia are generally deeper, richer and better drained. The growing season is short, but you can get a lot done with the right crops. That is why it's already possible to grow things like cabbage, potatoes, barley and buckwheat. Siberia is obviously not a bread basket to anything, but that's due to economics, not because stuff can't grow there. Crosby B. Alfred posted:Misunderstanding of economics, industrialized society and heavily biased politics lead to doomerism. Command economics have done the same if not more environmental damage than markets. Its not just a misunderstanding of economics, anyone who is seriously advocating for destructive degrowth fundamentally misunderstands human nature. Good luck convincing any government, democratically elected or not, to pursue a policy that intentionally makes its citizens poorer. Where it has happened, like in Venezuela (no friend to moving to a post carbon world BTW) it leads to shortages, poverty, instability, violence and mass displacement of people. I personally don't like billionaires either, but you know who will come out of destructive degrowth just fine? Billionaires. You know what a billionaire who loses most of his or her wealth is called? A multi-millionaire. As a middle class person in a rich country I would be OK too. Certainly affected, I'm probably buying less stuff, keeping my car longer, putting off some home repairs until they become emergencies, but I'm not going to starve. But what degrowth means is people who are on the fringes will pay the highest price. Over the last 50 years billions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty and destructive degrowth will throw them right back there. People who are still in poverty will just starve. But none of these rantings matter because they will have as much effect as wishing people didn't have long commutes or wishing cities were more walkable. The only thing that can save us is technology with smart public policy. This is the direction things are going in, but not its not fast enough. The way to solve lithium mining is to use sodium instead. The way to solve the human rights atrocities related to cobalt mining in the DRC is to invest modern technology and enforce workers rights and fair pay. And the way to have walkable cities is to build political pressure and consensus and make it happen. This is exactly what the Dutch did in the 1970's when they moved away from a car centric society to what they have now, and if we want that too we have to do the work instead of complaining how horrible suburbs and shroads are.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Its not just a misunderstanding of economics, anyone who is seriously advocating for destructive degrowth fundamentally misunderstands human nature. Good luck convincing any government, democratically elected or not, to pursue a policy that intentionally makes its citizens poorer. Where it has happened, like in Venezuela (no friend to moving to a post carbon world BTW) it leads to shortages, poverty, instability, violence and mass displacement of people. Agreed. Personally, I don't think there is any way we are going meet the Paris Accords but it's not the end of the world either. Still plenty bad and I would not want be living next to the coast or large bodies of water.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:This will be the solution by default, but you're right, the time is not now. I am curious if enough functional people have crack-pinged enough to be violent at a scale larger that a soloist mass shooting over climate. The ELF (Earth Liberation Front) is the only thing that comes to mind, and I haven't heard of them in quite awhile. It was also completely decentralized, which is probably what allowed for them to operate for so long, while simultaneously limiting the potential scope of their actions.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Don't dismiss that too quickly. Good luck with vineyards in the Canadian arctic. But Siberia is a huge place, and compared to the North American equivalent, the winters are colder but the summers are hotter. Its not cold winters that is the main limit to biological productivity but rather the lack of consistent warmth. That means that compared to the Canadian or Alaskan arctic, the soils in Siberia are generally deeper, richer and better drained. The growing season is short, but you can get a lot done with the right crops. That is why it's already possible to grow things like cabbage, potatoes, barley and buckwheat. Siberia is obviously not a bread basket to anything, but that's due to economics, not because stuff can't grow there. One of the biggest things holding back Siberian agriculture is a lack of long-term labor. You can't tell me that in some early planning stages of the Ukrainian invasion, the evil fucks didn't  at the possibility of sending tens/hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians up to work the fields in Siberia. As it stands, I've always thought "Plan B" will come when the Indian Subcontinent becomes inhospitable to those without access to air conditioning.I'd also imagine the soil under the permafrost is pretty damned fertile having been baked in trapped methane for hundreds/thousands of years. Most of the fertilizer industry is in deep with the CNG industry.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 06:50
|
|
