|
Mozi posted:I wonder when we will get to the 'throw poo poo in the air and see if it helps' stage, because we're obviously going to blow by all our targets. I've been wondering about this myself. I've uncritically assumed geoengineering will be tried at some point in the future in an attempt to mitigate the effects of climate change given that we're almost certainly not going to mett. On further thought I don't know how this could come about. The most plausible scenario I can think of is that a large-ish nation vulnerable to the effects of climate change unilaterally tries to disperse sulfate aerosols (or something similar) in the atmosphere in an attempt to placate a restive population. However given the large costs involved and uncertain outcome at best, I don't see any rogue nation attempting this. Countries with well-developed scientific institutions probably won't even consider trying. Maybe a crazy Musk-esque billionaire? To be clear I don't think climate change mitigation via geoengineering is a good idea at all, it will almost certainly have serious unintended consequences (if it even works).
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Geoengineering ideas may be ridiculous and dangerous proposals towards preventing the end of global human civilisation due to catastrophic climate change, but if anyone in this thread or anywhere else things that a political solution is possible now, or that one will ever be possible at any point in time, they are either fooling themselves or a complete idiot. There is literally one political solution that can end climate change and it is as follows: It's a little sad to think that a benevolent dictator would handle climate change more effectively than a collection of democratic nations. However an international political solution will be possible in the future, once the effects of climate change become undeniably harmful. The tragedy of course is that sort of political agreement will come too late to prevent a dangerous amount of warming. On the proactive side of things, my own limited involvement in climate advocacy was participating in a carbon tax lobby group: Citizens’ Climate Lobby I believed that in the context of the US a carbon tax is the best solution; local initiatives may make people feel good about themselves and their community but an overall increase on the price of carbon is what will get results. The problem with this kind of top down legislative approach is that Congress and the Senate are a brick wall, and will be for the foreseeable future. There's not much hope for a federal legislative solution in the US for at least the next 10 years (congressional gerrymandering has seen to that). I still think it's a good idea, but it's undeniable that Obama's Clean Power Plan will be more effective at reducing emissions (assuming it's not gutted by congress/the Supreme Court/an orange fascist).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The issue isn't that we just need to lower emissions by some small %, we need to drop total carbon equivalent emissions by +50% in the medium term and more in the out years. How do population controls get us there? It's a totally useless line of discussion. We can't even pass a carbon tax, and people are talking about mandating the number of kids people can have. That's definitely something that's going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
It's worth pointing that even in the US there's been progress on emissions. Here's a nice graph from the EPA:  Maybe it's too little/too late but there was a significant drop in carbon emissions per capita and per GDP over the past decade. It will be interesting to see if the recent collapse in oil prices results in higher emissions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:It's too little too late because per capita only matters if it results in absolute decreases and that graph looks like it shows population/gdp increasing faster than required to make the overall multiplier 1 or lower (about 1.1 from a quick look). You don't have to wonder about the absolute change in emissions, from the same page:  There was a small decrease in absolute US emissions around 2006 onwards (primarily CO2) but still slightly up compared to 1990. It was absolutely not enough, but the point is that there was in fact some progress. My guess is most of the declines in per capita emissions were due to inflated oil prices. If so it's a good argument for a carbon tax, although good luck getting that through US congress. Relatedly (inexplicably?) the Canadian federal govt announced a national carbon tax to be implemented by 2018. It's likely to be just lip-service, but it's something. edit beaten
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:How is moving major pollutants off shore to other countries progress? Like who even makes these country by country normalized graphs? It's complete garbage. I sort of agree, but the nation-specfic numbers are useful to evaluate the impact (or lack thereof) of policy. Also in this particular case recent reductions in US carbon emissions were largely due to switching from coal to natural gas for domestic electric power generation ie not outsourcing. edit beaten geez
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Canada just priced carbon across the whole country. The carbon prices are very low. However it's absolutely better than nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
parcs posted:It only costs a couple of billion dollars to dump enough sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce global temperatures by 1 degree C for a decade - and the climatic effects of this will be immediate. Given its low cost and instantaneous results, I think geoengineering is inevitable at this point. If the US or Europe don't want to do it because they don't feel the brunt of the warming, then India, China or Bangladesh will. Who, or what, will stop them? I believed this myself, but I've concluded it's kind of sloppy thinking. How would a nation like China or whatever actually decide to proceed with a unilateral geoengineering plan? What would be the actual chain leading up to such a decision? It would likely be politically difficult, even if the country in question was directly suffering under climate change. Would they still proceed over the strenuous objections of the international community? Any state sophisticated enough to try geoengineering is likely to recognize the serious possibility of unintended consequences, and would prefer not to be blamed for super acid rain etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:We are past the point of return if all the crap i read is right, the political theater of hundreds of competing nations will never resolve this. It's not correct to say climate change is unsolvable by the current international political framework. It's correct to point out that by the time the international community agrees to a coordinated plan a dangerous amount of warming will be inevitable (barring magic climate capture technology). The tragedy is that in current politics exploiting a crisis is the easiest way to push drastic reforms, but with global warming by the time the crisis occurs the damage is irreversible. Not to contribute to the depressive tone of this thread, but in retrospect the UNFCCC/Kyoto protocols was an acid test of our collective political leadership. The scientific consensus had developed by the early 90s, and at that point serious action could conceivably have kept global warming below 2C. Obviously this didn't happen. We have to make the best of our present situation, but unfortunately we still have largely the same leadership and institutions that failed to take action when needed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I'm willing to believe this, but I would certainly like to see your description of what would need to be done to prevent harm and how that's going to happen, because I haven't even seen an effective mitigation strategy at this point from anyone in this thread, only pointless delays that insure when things do get as bad as we know they will, there will be more people around for it to negatively impact. If I understand your question, you're asking how significant reductions in carbon emissions might realistically come about. The actual method to reduce emissions isn't controversial; internationally implement realistic carbon pricing and publicly fund the infrastructure needed to transition to a zero-carbon economy (maybe western nations need to help developing nations with the infrastructure). There are some tricks we can do like Obama's CPP (which is essentially backdoor carbon pricing) but that's marginal. The real question is how do you get the political support to do this? IMHO the most realistic path is the initial impact of global warming becomes undeniable and crosses over the threshold into "crisis". Something like a major city permanently flooding, or maybe Saudi Arabia becomes uninhabitable. During crises normal democratic processes can be sidestepped, and it's politically possible to implement the reforms that are currently stymied. This isn't even necessarily incompatible with the current neoliberal order, we don't need full socialism now (although it would help). The problem is the disaster that precipitates action has to be bad enough to trigger a "crisis", but happens early enough that catastrophic warming can be avoided ie humanity needs to be lucky. It's still possible of course that an international response develops over the few years through normal political processes. Maybe the Democrats take all three federal branches in November, pass a carbon tax and bully the rest of the G8 to do the same. Maybe western nations actually follow the Paris agreement. I don't think the "politics as normal" solution is very likely given recent history and time is not on our side but it's not impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well yes, but that's a good idea regardless of whether Climate Change is a thing or not. Most of my statements are directed at people who I would assume actually do care about this poo poo, have already taken the steps to minimize their carbon footprint, etc. I moved to a community that's much more ecologically focused, gave away my car, stopped using air travel, etc. But I mean, there's nothing appreciable for people like me to do other than watch the world burn at this point and try not to let it consume you. The only thing left I could do is agree to not have children and that's just not a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If that's the "unnecessary environmental degradation" we're talking about we're already so hosed that talking about individual action is a comedy. What makes the whole "don't have kids" argument so dumb is there is no way it's ever politically acceptable, it can't be universalized. A few individuals might decide to forego having kids, but unless you can convince the vast majority of humanity to go along (you won't) the reductions are marginal. Individual actions aren't enough on this issue, collective action is required. NewForumSoftware posted:Do you understand that if we take coordinated global action today, there's literally nothing we can do to stop a 4c+ raise in the global temperature at this point, including shutting down civilization. I don't think the future impacts of climate change are that certain, it's a difficult subject. I did admit that humanity probably needs to get lucky in some regards, positive feedback cycles need to be less severe than feared etc. I fully agree that 10m of sea rise is likely inevitable at this point, but there is a huge difference between it happening over 100 vs 500 years. The second is pretty survivable, the first not so much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Given that exponential temperature rise is happening today http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 10m sea rise in 50 years is not plausible. I'm not understating the challenge of climate change, that's just not supported by current science. Over 500 years maybe, which is already pretty serious.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So again, 3 feet in a 4C scenario from Antarctica (by 2100, not 2050), tell me where the remaining 30 feet of sea level is going to come from. I mean, this is already pretty catastrophic. There's no need to inflate the scale of the problem to something unrealistic. Placid Marmot posted:The number of children that people have is behavioral, based on the social and economic situations of the time and place; when the harm that comes from having ever more consumers is publicized, along with the advantages of having fewer chidren, plus other factors such as women's education, then people's behavior will shift; when people call choosing to have fewer children "dumb", people's behavior will also shift, in the wrong direction. Rather than "a few individuals" deciding to have fewer children, there is an overall change in the fertility level, resulting from the aforementioned factors. Discussing and promoting having fewer children and not flying around the world promotes collective action, even if that action is composed of the actions of millions of individuals who don't necessarily know that their actions contribute to an overall behavioral shift. Does it really promote collective action? Can you estimate how much carbon emissions have been reduced by "discussing and promoting having fewer children and not flying around the world"? If you can't, then how do you know this discussion is having any effect at all? If it's not clear, I dislike the emphasis on individual action as a solution to climate change as there's no evidence it accomplishes anything. We need actual solutions, not things that make people feel good about themselves. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Yes, changing the behavior of a population both is and results in collective action. There's certainly a huge potential to reduce emissions in the US by limiting consumption, especially in the US. The problem is that we live in a capitalist society where the average person's economic activity is constrained by what they can afford, and carbon emissions makes things cheap. It would be nice if people virtuously decided to reduce their consumption, but that's not likely when they'ree primarily concerned with making ends meet. Also to exaggerate, this is what I think when somebody talks about individualized approaches to climate change mitigation: 1) Person makes an ethical decision, goes vegetarian/foregoes air travel/no children 2) ??? 3) Everyone else does the same thing, global carbon emissions are reduced by 60% If you're using your individual decisions as a means to start a discussion about reducing carbon emissions then you're participating in the political process and at least doing something (FYI the "Don't Have Kids" party is not going to do well at the polls). But there's no point pretending individual choices regarding consumption have any effect when there's literally billions of other consumers out there to average everything out. A collective approach is needed if we're actually going to try limit the damage of climate change, specifically using society's institutions to make carbon emissions expensive or illegal. edit: AceOfFlames posted:So in other words for your own selfish enjoyment you are willing to create another human being who will most likely spend their short lift scrabbling a horrible hand to mouth existence and deal with likely being repeatedly raped and brutalized? Honestly for the vast majority of people the answer is "absolutely yes". Especially in the context of climate change, where the impacts are nebulous and hard to evaluate. It's not the smartest answer, but there it is. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There's no reasonable scenario where this happens either. Worrying about the literal extinction of the human race is silly, because the negative effects of climate change on economic growth will drastically reduce our ability to dump carbon into the atmosphere whether we like it or not. It's a fairly morbid thing to say, but the 2008 recession and drastic run-up in oil prices that happened beforehand probably did more to mitigate emissions than just about anything else we've done so far. I was curious and looked up changes in emissions following financial crashes, and found this interesting Nature opinion piece. The main plot:  It's probably not surprising that the largest historical decreases in carbon emissions were likely due to economic crashes. The worst was the Savings and Loan crisis, by a completely unscientific analysis it looks like prevented almost a billion tonnes of carbon emissions. The 2008 financial crisis is closer to ~350 million tonnes. Here's another plot:  This one underscores the magnitude of the failure of the Kyoto protocols. Instead of reducing emissions the developed world actually increased carbon consumption after 1997, and the developing world's emissions exploded. Looking at that graph maybe there wasn't much that could have been done to prevent China and India's industrialization, but the west's refusal to reduce emissions certainly didn't help.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:
Focusing on concrete action is definitely more productive than the depressive whining on display itt. However I think people should in fact focus on the big picture, as while local environmental initiatives are important on their own merits climate change is a uniquely global problem. To contribute, one of the more recent victories for climate change mitigation was the announcement of a Canadian national carbon tax. It's worth examining the policy and how it came about. It follows the example of British Columbia (a Canadian province), which introduced a provincial carbon tax in 2008 following an election. There was already significant public support for climate change action in BC, and during the 2008 election the centrist Liberal party realized they could steal votes from the nominally more progressive New Democrat Party by attacking them from the left on this issue. It worked, in part because the carbon tax was better than the NDP's cap and trade proposal and in part because the BC NDP was/is/always will be terrible (guess who's a former member!). Note that fossil fuel use dropped ~16% in BC since passing the tax, while the rest of Canada usage increased ~3% over the same time period. The recent Canadian national carbon tax followed a similar pattern. While several Canadian provinces were considering various carbon pricing plans, the federal Liberal government made a surprise announcement of a mandatory national tax. The same political logic applies, in that they can steal progressive voters away from the NDP by backing a policy that's already moderately popular. The actual proposed carbon prices are very low, as the Liberal party's goal is to maintain political power and not so much to actually fight climate change. The point is that national carbon pricing is achievable, but it requires a strong enough progressive political faction that centrists feel threatened and try to co-opt some of their positions. If people in this thread are serious about climate change mitigation, the most productive action is to join the most progressive national political party and help make them scary enough that centrists try to steal their supporters. In Canada this means joining the NDP (as depressing as they are right now), in the US I guess it means primarying centrist Democrats and somehow reversing Republican state level domination. Bernie Sander's vanity primary challenge was a pretty good example of this tactic. My main point is that people have to seriously engage in the depressing mess that is state and national level politics to make any real difference wrt climate change, retreating into local initiatives is of limited help.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Here's a really fantastic explainer out today on the story behind the Washington State carbon tax proposal that is going to be on the ballot next month. This is really interesting, thanks for posting it. A few thoughts: -Washington state's insane funding is an underlying problem here. If I lived in a state funded entirely by spending taxes I'd definitely want carbon revenue to go towards actual spending. In states with actual income taxes, a revenue neutral carbon tax could be tolerated. -the split between the two groups is ugly, and part of it seems personality driven. The Alliance deserves some blame for moving too slowly and allowing CarbonWA to get a ballot question in, but building a broad political consensus takes time. I prefer the Alliance's approach but they got their lunch eaten. -Bauman comes off as a technocrat. Recent polling shows trying to get Republicans on board a climate change mitigation proposal is foolish -I'd probably vote for the measure if I lived in WA, but it's definitely not ideal. -The Alliance's plan to put a carbon tax ballot question on an off-year election is super not ideal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Does anyone have a good list of charities and organisations working against climate change? I live in Northern Ireland currently and have no idea who to even turn to or try to support. Citizen's Climate Lobby is pretty good, a dedicated lobbying group proposing a simple carbon tax. It's US-centric and would be on the technocratic/single-issue side of things, but they do have international chapters. When I was more involved my belief was that a simple revenue-neutral carbon tax was the only thing likely to get through congress. I'm not sure if this is still the best approach, but it's something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
I hope the bears eat them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Everyone concerned with climate change mitigation needs to really internalize this plot: If the early-90s was the point where the reality of climate change was clearly recognized (internet cranks and the GOP aside), then nuclear power capacity should have been ramping up by the early 2000s at the latest. Instead nuclear flatlined and we went all in on fossil fuels (not even mentioning the developing world). At this point pricing carbon (as unlikely as that is) has to come first, as rapidly expanding nuclear has even less public support and that's unlikely to change until it becomes (relatively) cheaper than fossil fuels. Thorium is even further out there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
The adults in the room (ie the Democrats in the US) likely understand the reality of climate change and might even share the outlook of the depressives in this thread. The fact that they're politically constrained to the point that they can't even come out against fracking is a huge part of the problem. edit: For example Obama definitely understands that climate change is a big problem, but the best he could do is backdoor regulate coal power plants out of existence via the CPP. Unless the House somehow flips in November (it probably won't) Hillary can't do any better. Congress (and the Republicans + Freedom caucus) are a real brick wall in terms of a rapid response to climate change in the US. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
It's actually worth going through HRC's campaign promises, with dumb commentary from me: Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan ... -This is good and one of the few things the President can do unilaterally. Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution ... -How does any new funding get past congress? Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development ... -How does this get past congress? Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible .. -Also a good one and similar to what was done with the CPP ie discourage fossil fuel power generation with targeted regulations Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade. -Who pays? If expanding clean energy requires additional federal subsidies then how does that get past congress? Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy. -How does the get past congress? Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources. -Another regulation based initiative Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations... -The federal govt is heavily constrained in the assistance it can provide to local communities. The state legislatures will continue to be terrible. Expect fierce resistance to fossil fuel measures to continue. Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning ... -Another regulation based initiative, also promises to keep the lights on at the EPA Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources ... -This is fine Basically Hillary's realistic proposals are regulation based (and basically what B.O. is doing already), and promising not to bulldoze national parks or shutter the EPA. This is already much better than anything the Republicans are proposing. She has spending proposals that won't go anywhere unless the composition of congress magically changes. It's not like the President can order nuclear plants and solar farms built unilaterally. Crucially there's absolutely no mention of carbon pricing, one of the few plausible ways to seriously reduce carbon emissions via market forces. This is likely due to political constraints, which is a big problem. edit: Trabisnikof posted:Also climate change is a central part of both Clinton and the Democratic Party platforms. The public/media just didn't really care. Clinton wove climate change into a few of her debate answers even though 0 questions were asked about the most pressing issue facing our nation and all humanity. I think that's what people here are saying, the Democrats + Clinton can propose whatever they want but Congressional Republicans are a brick wall. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The same thing we needed to do if Hillary was elected. Build a coalition mass movement, win local elections, and pressure elected officials to act. The difference is Hillary would have given more lip service to the threat of climate change and probably would have done a bit more to support small (effectively meaningless) changes in energy policy, but remember she would also have been hamstrung by a congressional blockade. Under Trump, the US energy policy will be more of the status quo. Oil and gas production will increase, but production was already expanding before this election. I think you're broadly right. At the same time a spade is a spade, Trump is definitely going to roll back the CPP which was one of the few positive achievements of climate change in the US over the past few years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:tbh I think you are right about this. I suspect the PRC can see the writing on the wall. They literally have nothing to lose by combating climate change and investing in mitigation/green energy. It will help to quell the murmurs of discontent over the environment domestically and paints them in a very positive light on the international stage. They also have done a lot of development work/major investments in African countries (many of which will be hit hard by climate change) and I'm sure they'll want to keep up the good will as they push development (read: influence) there. The Chinese CPC isn't the progressive force you might expect. PRC leaders are politically constrained in terms of being able to impose economically costly climate change policies, just like their western counterparts. Mozi posted:If Trump withdraws from the Paris treaty there is no amount of organization or movement-tizing that will make up for that. Period. This needs to be emphasized. Contributing to local movements is fine and worthwhile, but it's just so easy for hard-won political progress to be undone in an instant if reactionaries gain power. Probably the most effective climate mitigation strategy in the US at this point is to ensure progressive Democrats win the Presidency and congress in 2020. Everything else is relatively insignificant in terms of emission reductions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:I live in quebec and we have 2 carbon taxes (provincial and federal) even though every year since the beginning of times we emit a negative amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Were paying out the rear end to offset american and Chinese greenhouse gazes and all the funds are squandered/gifted to huge corporations. "Climate justice" is the biggest ponzi scheme of all time. Among other things, don't let yourself believe for a second that Quebec is anything like carbon neutral. Yes the boreal forests are carbon sinks for now, but wide swaths are going to go up in smoke (literally) over the next couple of decades. If you're going to include forest carbon to claim that Canadians don't need to do anything about climate change then what are you going to say when Canadians become (even moreso) the highest per capita carbon emitters in the world when they start burning down due to climate change? For reference this is one of those positive feedback processes people are so worried about when they say we need to stay under 2C (or less). Unlike most positive feedback processes the impact of global warming on boreal forests is fairly well understood and has already started. The only way to avoid this scenario is for massive cuts in global carbon emissions right now, but good luck with that. edit: You're probably a troll, but a lot of Canadians share this belief and it's worth pointing out why it's dumb and self-defeating. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:So you're totally on board with a carbon tax as long as low-income taxpayers are subsidized to make up the difference, then? To be fair Quebec's carbon tax/market doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:So like, hypothetically, where is the best place to be while this all goes down from now to like 150 years from now? The entire great lakes region will do relatively well, assuming they stop building housing developments over all the best farmland (they won't). Chicago and Toronto may well become North America's dominant cities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:I've been in borderline hysterics for a while now and it only seems to be getting worse. Please, can people spread this info around, especially to celebrities and people with a lot of followers? Not just the arctic ice thing but the consequences and how the govt won't withstand it. Nobody I've seen is discussing this and I don't think anyone realizes how dire things are right now, if it became part of the conversation maybe we could take more drastic action. This needs a big loving news story to get people motivated. Look up the "bike-shed effect" or Parkinson's Law of Triviality. Climate change isn't discussed in popular culture because it's complex and the outcome of any sort of discussion is generally "it's an unavoidable global catastrophe". Even if our media wasn't an endless stream of venal chatting at the sub-6th grade level, that kind of foregone conclusion just doesn't get good ratings. As other's have pointed out our monkey brains aren't well suited to thinking about civilization-scale problems and what it really means to gamble with billions of lives. We don't like talking about it, there's always some better distraction. NewForumSoftware posted:It's been a "big loving news story" for close to forty years now. Nothing's going to change until there are severe localized impacts to a majority of the population. This as well. If there's one cause for (extremely faint) hope, it's that our society can actually respond very quickly to clear and direct threats. If modern economies could be retooled to combat global warming in the same manner they were directed to blow people up during WWII we could drastically reduce emissions within several years. Just replacing every single coal plant with nuclear power generation would likely buy a couple of extra decades to figure out the remaining issues. The tragedy is that global warming isn't a clear and direct threat at present, and by the time it becomes one it's too late to stop it. Maybe we get lucky and a few coastal cities get swamped in the near future, provoking the necessary response while there's still time to prevent civilization-ending climate change. I feel pretty stupid typing that out while living in NYC. Good luck everyone!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Communication to masses requires listeners. I thought this political cartoon was very astute:  The mass-media model had a lot of drawbacks, but at least you could be reasonably certain most people were aware of the major issues of the day. edit: ok maybe it's a little preachy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:You are underestimating the amount of people who don't know this story and also lumping the very real event of the arctic sheet melting completely right loving now with the over-all climate change narrative which I'm aware people know. If enough people spoke out the govt would pay attention and it would at least bring more attention to the subject, it doesn't matter if most people know because things have just escalated tremendously and no one is discussing. Saying no one will listen does nothing, if even one more person knows about this it will help. People have already pointed out that the information has been publicized for a while now. I'd just like to point out something that's been posted before in this thread but is crucial to understand, not only is climate change in the popular consciousness but it's been thoroughly processed by our political system with progressives supporting action and conservatives denying the problem even exists. See this plot:  This is a huge tragedy for any hope that we could address global warming proactively. By becoming a partisan political issue, facts matter much less as people feel comfortable dismissing scientific evidence as politically motivated distortions. What's interesting is that this is a relatively recent phenomena, even in 2000 Bush Jr felt constrained to at least acknowledge the seriousness of global warming even if he had no intention of doing anything about it. Now Donald Trump is picking climate change deniers for his cabinet. There was a real shift in attitudes over the past 16 years and it's clear progressives lost. I don't have similar studies for other countries but I can assure you there's been a similarly polarization of public opinion along political lines in Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:Here's some good news, yellowyams. Canada is mostly empty right now. Permafrost being the main reason people don't live much further north than the US-CA border. There's this thing called the "Canadian shield", good luck farming on former perma-frost. Water-issues alone make the great lakes and southern Ontario/Quebec probably the best places to live through a climate change catastrophe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
SavageGentleman posted:I really hope the Canadian government of 2030+ will find a workable solution for integrating millions of immigrants from a failing, yet still super militarized Southern neighbour. The Language Police of Greater Quebec will keep the idiot Americans in line with a mixture of fear, ruthless efficiency and a fanatical devotion to Bill 101. Forever_Peace posted:Your solution is a good one, but waiting isn't going to make it happen. There's no Pearl Harbor of global warming. No singular event to galvanize a population. I don't disagree, I certainly don't want to argue for inaction. However we need to be realistic and acknowledge the difference between major and marginal emission reductions. Local actions are worthwhile and necessary, but can only ever be marginal. To stay under 2C warming we needed major action, specifically national governments needed to proactively recognize the danger that global warming posed and co-ordinate to address the collective action problem that is carbon emissions. It's clear that this didn't happen, and Trump's election is just the tombstone on any sliver of hope to stay under 2C and minimize the risk of runaway warming processes. The takeaway is that our society is probably not capable of the major effort needed to proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy on the basis of the scientific consensus re global warming. We probably need a direct threat to instigate a crisis where the normal democratic process breaks down and drastic action becomes possible, a Pearl Harbor-type event like Miami or NYC flooding (again). Progressives need to be ready to seize the moment when the crisis occurs and make it clear that a zero-carbon economy is the only way to address the threat. Ideally this happens early enough that we can prevent some of the apocalyptic scenarios people like posting here, and for that humanity frankly needs to get a bit lucky. 2016 is guaranteed to be the warmest year on record by a large margin, that might be an effective rhetorical club going forward.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Even if this is correct (which I don't necessarily cede), wouldn't trying to build the society that would proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy be a way forward without having to wait for a Pearl Harbor that might never arrive? I agree, we need to try to proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy. My point is empirically it doesn't seem like we're going to seriously move to a zero-carbon economy without a major crisis spurring us. We had a clear scientific consensus and path forward in the early 1990s and simply failed to act. However we should absolutely put in the work now to make this transition easier when the "crisis" does occur. Maybe we make this transition so easy that a crisis isn't actually necessary, but I'm not holding my breath. edit: my posts might be coming off as low-content. I think my major point is that progressives need to be ready to push a radical carbon-reduction agenda if an opportunity presents itself. Alarmism and lying will be totally warranted, as it turns out we live in post-fact society anyway. Ideally our elected representatives will already be receptive to this kind of message, in the US you'll likely have to wait at least 4 more years before that's possible. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Empirical how? What's the evidence that climate change is more intractable of an issue than gay marriage was 20 years ago? I'm not saying it can't be, or even that it isn't, but I'm surprised to hear you say that there is persuasive empirical evidence for it already. When predicting the future course of society the word "empirical" is of course going to be used very loosely. However your question kind of answers itself, climate change was absolutely an issue ~24 years ago and if anything it's even more intractable today. There's already been one big experiment where the world came together, acknowledged that climate change was a problem and agreed action should be taken (the Kyoto protocol). It was a test that we collectively failed, and it's evidence that we aren't going to seriously deal with the problem until we're forced to (ie the effects become too catastrophic to ignore, a crisis). Maybe we get it together over the next 4-8 years, I'd just point out that one of the world's major emitters per capita just came out of an election where climate change wasn't even an issue. If anything the candidates were fighting to assure that they'll be the ones to best protect coal/pipeline jobs. edit: Xeom posted:So it seems like a societal collapse is inevitable within the next decade or two. I always thought I could make it through any situation, but my girlfriend, possibly soon to be wife, is a type 1 diabetic. She can't make it without insulin, and one day I will probably have to watch her die before her time. Sometimes this thread goes a little too far into gloom and doom territory. Outside of a methane clathrate-gun situation or PT extinction event, western societies are unlikely to collapse within our lifetime. There's just too much surplus production, especially if Americans reduce their consumption closer to the world average. Cities flooding are the big problem, but that will happen relatively slowly. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
bef posted:I have the opportunity to try to get some land at the great Lakes but would it be best to invest in Alaska instead? How good are you at fighting REALLY hungry polar bears?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Trudeau seems like a sensible man, is he going to address this at any point? We really need more world leaders speaking out about this. Trudeau is essentially equivalent to Hillary Clinton. Expect him to address climate change to the extent that it steals the NDP's thunder and not one bit more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I've meaningfully engaged with your critique, so maybe you could do the same for me. What is your 20 year prediction for the two most populous nations on Earth: India and China? Do you think they will be able to enact meaningful climate reform or do you think they'll be pressured into scrapping those measures in order to appease the political demands of their respective populations? Maybe? If the destabilizing force can be clearly identified as climate change it might even increase the resolve to pursue climate change mitigation strategies.This probably only works if the west is on board and willing to share some of the costs, so hopefully this doesn't come up over the next 4-8 years! Of course I can't predict the future any better than you can. I will admit that the Chinese public's committment to fighting climate change doesn't look that deep:  Jack2142 posted:I agree on you assessment on what will happen to incredibly resource stressed countries like India and China. India I think is going to be the first major "Domino" to fall. When Bangladesh floods that's more than a hundred million of refugees that will flood into a country that doesn't have institutions and unity to absorb these refugees. Anything flooding-related will (hopefully!) take more than a few years to play out. Assuming we're not in a feedback-dominated regime when it happens, emission reductions now are still helpful in terms of buying future govts a little more time to respond to the crisis. I feel a bit like Prof. Pangloss. edit: Kenzie posted:Yeah, my own feeling is that people are going to become even more irrational and insane when faced with a massive crisis, not suddenly snap out of it and band together to stop it or adapt to it. Refining my point, if the crises can be linked to climate change then it will provide an unprecedented opportunity for the global community to justifiably stick it to the US. They might be very eager for the opportunity. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Thanks thread for making me so depressed and hopeless we're probably going to cancel our have-a-kid plan. Don't you live in Victoria? You should be more worried about earthquakes and a rapidly aging population with driver's licenses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Rime posted:Seriously, there's nothing you can do. You can write all the letters and freak out as much as you want, but a freight train takes a kilometer to stop and we're 200m from the fuckin' cliff. It'll halt eventually but it won't be from the brakes and it won't matter to anyone riding it. That was a lot of words for what amounts to the Republican party position. Seriously though, the Climate Change Lobby is not happy about the election: quote:Scaling the Cliff: Climate Advocacy Under a Trump Presidency I don't envy anyone trying to lobby a republican congressman on climate change, but these guys are going to try if anyone wants to help. Personally I think any real progress on climate change in the US is linked to the Democrat party's electoral success. Contributing to the party rebuilding itself is probably more productive than focusing on climate change as a single issue. Similarly in Canada progress on climate change seems to depend on how scared the federal liberals are of the NDP stealing votes from the left. Rebuilding the NDP and ending their insane promotion of new pipelines is probably the best way forward there. It's a tightrope though, if the NDP gets too popular and splits the vote the Conservatives win and it's another 9 years of climate scientists not allowed to speak to the public without a govt "minder" present.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
PsychoLordling posted:Regarding sad 3rd world children... A lot of them are dying today, of things a lot easier to fix than global climate change (probably) killing people in a few years. People that doesn't care about kids dying today will not care about people that might die in the future. Not directed at you necessarily, but I have no idea how people get excited about the interest in colonizing Mars when that's an order of magnitude more difficult than just not messing up Earth's climate. We have actual water, the right gravitational strength, a magnetic field and a (still breathable) atmosphere down here. What problem is going to Mars going to solve, especially right now? On the other hand if it's a secret plot to shoot tech-libertarians into space then I'm on board.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:29
|
|