Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Slow News Day posted:

It's literally the same poo poo over and over.

"Hey guys, things appear to be much worse than we predi-"
"Nah, your models/data/whatever are just outliers! Look at these other models we have, most of us agree that their projections are far more reasonable!"
A few years pass, things do indeed get more dire
"Hey guys, things ARE getting much worse much fas-"
"Nah, your models/data/whatever are just outliers! Besides we can't tell people poo poo might be hosed, they'll just panic and give up! Or they will think we're alarmists and stop taking us seriously!"

It's almost as if there's something in the human brain that absolutely refuses to accept that cataclysm might be � might be � just around the corner, and instead chooses to believe that it'll be a slow deterioration and decline over a long time period.

Ars Technica went through some climate skeptic predictions which may be a useful reference.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/

# ¿ Aug 9, 2021 10:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 06:36

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

mediaphage posted:

form significant local ties is really the only worthwhile answer that gives any chance of helping out in an extended scenario

This. If civilization does collapse living alone in a shed in the countryside is the worst possible thing you can do so of course a lot of preppers plan to do exactly that. Catastrophe and war is a driver of urbanization for a reason.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2021 11:58

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Griffen posted:

Can you give me any historical examples of this occuring? Most that I can think of indicate the opposite: fall of the Indus Valley civilization, contraction of the Uruk phenomenon, late bronze age collapse, Fall of the Western Roman Empire, plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the Mongol Invasion. They all decreased urban population and development, sometimes drastically for centuries after. I agree that living alone in the woods is a recipe for death, but living in a large city as the wheels come off the complicated system that supports it isn't much better. I think small, well connected communities are probably the best bet as they can be more self sufficient and flexible. If they have the right mentality that is.

Well I would stick with modern examples such as Somalia.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2021 13:03

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

occluded posted:

edit: also corgies are the best dog; my fondest professional memory involves one being the Very Best of Dogs but that's a huge sidetrack even for this thread.

Well there are larger or more active dogs that consume more and some smaller dogs like Pugs that emit a lot more methane but still, in terms of climate change, it may be a stretch to claim corgies are the best dog. Personality may pose challenges when we get to the "eat the rich" phase. Perhaps a small, non-gassy but very angry breed like a Chihuahua is a better bet.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2021 08:01

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Qtamo posted:

I'm not an expert on geothermal, but wrt to questions about depth versus energy production, there's currently a project ongoing in Finland where they're building a pilot facility with a 6,5 kilometer well depth. At least at the time they were announcing the project it was supposed to be the deepest geothermal heat production plant in the world. They claim "up to 40 MW of energy" as the production. Finnish bedrock is pretty hard but also very stable, which I'd guess makes drilling a bit harder. They've currently finished drilling and the plant is supposed to start production in early 2022, so I guess we'll find out pretty soon how well it works in reality and what the actual production is.

Denmark has it's first geothermal project in the works as well. Maersk used to run oil and gas rigs in the North Sea but sold it off and now wants to use that expertise to do geothermal. It's for district heating though. They're cagey about it but they're actively building infrastructure so it's more than a hypothetical.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2021 07:14

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

I feel like opposition to nuclear is similar to opposition to GMOs and "chemicals" aa a more general opposition to the artificial. Similarly I often see people talking about cities as if they are environmental disasters while idealizing rural living and smallholding.

Like there's this continent in environmental and climate circles that still labors under the misconception that we can live in harmony with nature. Out of the concrete jungle into nature, small and local production, harvesting the natural forces of wind and solar, sustainable, self-sufficient. Mainly self-sufficient in vegetables.

It's a problematic mindset because 8 billion people - let alone 10-12 billion - can't possibly live in harmony with nature. This planet is, and has been for a while, a human habitat. Some places are still untouched but by and large the most fertile areas have been scoured of natural life in favor of agriculture, industry, homes and roads. There is no harmony or balance possible in this.

This can only work with technology and we need to do it at large scales in a parallel artificial system that aims to use as little land and as few resources as possible. If you want to grow a vegetable patch and raise some chickens by all means but if the trade-off is that you're now driving 30 extra miles every time you want to go somewhere because you moved out of the city, you're probably not helping. It doesn't matter. We need nuclear and engineered crops and the efficiency of cities and every other bit of technology we can get to limit our footprint.

It's not natural and there's no harmony because it's fundamentally unnatural for there to be this many of us and for us to live this way.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2021 09:42

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

I've been reliably informed that the economy can still grow if we stay below 1.5c so ya'll can calm down now.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2021 08:00

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Harold Fjord posted:

Guess we're going to need massive resolutionary changes across multiple sectors of society. Maybe someone should start a political party about it.

Sure just don't expect to mobilize the masses if you promise to take away cars and burgers.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2022 19:15

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

So basically rich farmers don't give a gently caress and would rather act like children while loving over children than pay a bit more for alternatives.

It affects all farmers whether they grow 50 or a 1000 acres. It reduces yield per acre which obviously impacts them financially so of course some are upset. While fertlizers are critical and irreplaceable in our food system they are subject to diminishing returns and have environmental costs so for wider society it makes sense to optimize tradeoffs. Agriculture is economically irrelevant in most modern economies and Europe has good food security so chosing to reduce food production to limit environmental damage is a viable option but obviously it's unpleasant for farmers.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2022 07:13

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Failed Imagineer posted:

Wow I kinda assumed the climate bill had been watered down to.a big pile of nothing, but since that's what Lomborg thinks then it must actually be pretty decent, actually

Agreed that I would love to see that guy get dragged limb from limb by wild horses, in Minecraft. A traitor to his species

That's fair enough but he's just some guy with a political science degree so no one should care what he has to say about climate science. He's only a thing because it was convenient for others to pretend he somehow mattered.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2022 23:15

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

A big flaming stink posted:

Not quite, my concern is that satisfaction with the IRA, and consequently the Paris accords, shows a complete disregard for the global south. The complete success of the Paris Accord will not avert a rise in temperature that will, unquestionably, subject the global South to unimaginable deprivation. Complete and utter destruction of their ways of life deprivations.

So someone is happy with progress towards that goal, all that tells me is they do not care at all about the fate of the dispossessed, either either out of ignorance or out of inhuman apathy

There's nothing that will do that though. Climate Change has been ongoing for a century and the changes that are baked in will affect billions of people no matter what. No legislation or action we take will make that not true. We can make climate change less bad and that's it.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2022 03:59

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Electric Wrigglies posted:

As someone that is part of reducing climate impact of the global south without loving over their lives with violence for their own good, I think you don't appreciate what tearing down all the systems actually means. Like a survivalist that thinks the post nuclear armageddon will include them as anything other than another corpse on the side of the road or in a tunnel, you and me both alongside anyone that knows about climate models will be put up against a wall and shot in a proper revolution.

It makes sense if you think humanity is fundamentally good but has been corrupted and controlled by capitalism. We just have to break the system and set humans free to work together and solve the problem. It relies on the assumption that the masses would want to make drastic personal change and sacrifice for absttact long-term benefits if only they were allowed to.

I think humans are just kinda lovely. Greed and short-sighted self-centered pricks predates capitalism - the Pyramids were not built for the sake of capital gains or tax breaks. If we somehow peacefully smashed the system it's not obvious that the result would be popular demand for austere living rather than groups competing for as large a cut as possible at the expense of each other. Which is what we do now.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2022 22:53

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Enjoy posted:

Basically go vegan or stop posting

Sure but it's still less than 6% of emissions. We can't reasonably get rid of all of it. There's good reason why subsidence farmers in underdeveloped regions all have a few pigs, goats or chickens - it's an efficient use of household waste. We could limit it but it would never be a 6% emission reduction.

The main emission culprits are buildings and road transport. In industry it's steel and cement. In agriculture I'd hazard that it's synthetic fertilizer and the whole sector would instantly become greener if green hydrogen could replace grey hydrogen.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2022 07:31

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Enjoy posted:

The 2021 FAO study says its 21% (57% of the 37% of agriculture emissions)

Well you posted ourworldindata as a source so that's what I used.

So ourworldindata says agriculture is responsible for 18% of emissions and the FAO study says 37%. What is going on with your sources? Which should we rely on and why?

# ¿ Aug 21, 2022 08:35

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

slurm posted:

If everyone followed my example we'd be at zero human emissions in, at most, a decade.

If we all followed the example of Ethiopians the US would be at 0.6% emissions which would be adequate.

What is your aim? Do you want to reduce emissions to reduce climate change impacts or do you believe it is a lost cause and you're just living your best life until the end? If it's the former then subsistence farming and avoiding all modern technology and conveniences is fine. It's a dull and umpleasant life but it's not difficult. If it's the latter then why do you care if others are living their best lives in a different way?

I think you made a choice to kill yourself rather than reduce your standard of living and now you want to guilt trip parents for having carbon emitting children so you can pretend that your choice to have a big end of the world carbon emission party is morally superior.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2022 12:19

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Clarste posted:

While it is trivially true that the future is unknown until it happens, the point of making scientific predictions is to narrow down a range of possibilities.

And so far our predictions have broadly been pretty accurate.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2022 09:39

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

The European Union is working on a carbon tax tariff scheme. Financial Times did a piece on it.

Financial Times posted:

EU’s trading partners accuse bloc of protectionism over carbon tax plan

Brussels negotiations continue as world-first levy faces criticism from US, China and African nations

The EU’s trading partners have hit out at the bloc’s plan to introduce the world’s first carbon border tax, saying it is protectionist and puts export industries at risk, as negotiations to complete the deal stretch into the weekend.

Several developing nations have already begun to negotiate with Brussels for waivers on the proposals, which are provisional until a final set of talks conclude this weekend. After that the agreement must be approved by EU ambassadors. Issues outstanding include the specific dates for its gradual phase-in.

German lawmaker Michael Bloss, a European parliament negotiator, said on Saturday that “a lot was negotiated” on Friday but “little was decided”. The talks “will continue and hopefully conclude the negotiations on Europe’s largest climate protection package”, he told Reuters.

Swedish lawmaker Emma Wiesner said Friday’s talks had achieved a “surprisingly big amount of progress”. Other EU officials told Reuters that deals had not yet been found on the most divisive issues.

The tax will require importers to buy certificates to cover their emissions based on calculations linked to the EU’s own carbon price. Iron, steel, cement, aluminium, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity generation will all be covered by the deal. A trial period is set to start in October 2023.

If it is considered a success, the EU plans to expand the scheme to other sectors, including cars and organic chemicals.

A number of countries have approached the European Commission to request more flexibility in the tariff’s application, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

The plan has attracted criticism from countries including the US and South Africa, which said that the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will unfairly penalise their manufacturers.

“We are particularly concerned about things like border adjustment taxes, and regulatory requirements that are imposed unilaterally,” Ebrahim Patel, South Africa’s trade minister, told the Financial Times. “If it gets to be an enormous defining thing between north and south, you’re going to have a lot of political resistance.”

“There are a lot of concerns coming from our side about how this is going to impact us and our trade relationship,” US trade representative Katherine Tai said at a conference in Washington this week.

The EU views the CBAM as a core part of its efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050, arguing that it will simultaneously encourage countries outside the bloc to decarbonise their industrial sectors.

“CBAM is just a way to threaten third countries that they should also update their ambitions when it comes to climate,” said Mohammed Chahim, a Dutch socialist politician who has led negotiations on the law for the European parliament.

Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it was set to be the country that was most affected by the CBAM. Russian exports made up the biggest proportion of imports from CBAM-affected sectors, according to an analysis by the Berlin-based think-tank Adelphi based on data for EU imports between 2015 and 2019.

The substantial fall in imports from Russia due to the EU’s sanctions regime and the destruction of Ukrainian industry has pushed the burden on to other countries.

China makes up around a tenth of affected imports, according to Adelphi, with Turkey and India also hit. China has frequently attacked the tariff since it was first proposed in July last year.

Developing nations with less economic heft and no systems in place for measuring emissions were more likely to suffer the most from the introduction of the levy, said Faten Aggad, senior adviser on climate diplomacy at the African Climate Foundation.

“The countries that are most likely to mitigate the risk of CBAM are the ones that already have proper carbon counting,” she said. The result could be a “deindustrialisation” in African nations that export to the EU.

“A lot of these sectors risk losing business unless we pump money into their sustainability and it’s very difficult to rebuild.”

Steelmakers in Brazil are concerned that the CBAM will put domestic producers at risk. Instead of shipping their goods to Europe, exporters might target less protected steel markets such as South America.

“Our big worry isn’t exports to [Europe],” said Marco Polo de Mello Lopes, executive president of the Instituto Aço Brasil, but rather that more material is diverted to the region, leaving domestic industry “vulnerable”.

Anger at the measure has been exacerbated by the EU’s insistence that the CBAM will encourage others to decarbonise, while not providing funds to help poorer countries invest in clean technologies.

Revenues from the CBAM are intended to go into the EU’s internal budget with a loose commitment to provide climate finance to countries outside the bloc, according to those familiar with the draft text.

Baran Bozoğlu, chair of the Climate Change Policy and Research Association, a non-profit research outfit in Ankara, said that it would be “beneficial [for the EU] to provide various incentives, supports and technologies so that the Turkish economy is not adversely affected”.

He added that exporters would have to pay to calculate their carbon emissions and have that validated in order to report to the EU. It was a “great injustice” that they had to cover that cost as well as pay the CBAM, he said.

Policy wise it appears to have much the same aims as the US Inflation Reduction Act but with diametrically opposite approaches. The US is spending massively on the energy transition while the EU is forcing industry to transition through taxes. The EU is complaining that the US is unfairly subsidizing domestic production while the US is complaining that the EU is unfairly taxing imports. In both cases onshoring industry and a degree of deglobalization seems more of an intended feature than a bug.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2022 14:33

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Describing it as "a possible depiction" would be inaccurate.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2023 18:46

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

cat botherer posted:

DAC is a pseudo-technology to fool the rubes. It's a complete pipe dream and doesn't make sense from basic physics. CCS from emission sources isn't complete bullshit but it is absolutely being pushed for cynical reasons. Again, you are confusing this whole situation by continuing to conflate these things.

You could use surplus nuclear for steam reforming natgas to hydrogen which would probably be cheaper than electrolysis. You just need to put the carbon somewhere...

DAC makes little sense to me as long as there's literally anything else electricity can be used for.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2023 19:30

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

BRJurgis posted:

If your response to what I wrote is to assert that I both don't care and don't understand 1>0, you either need to read it again or you're messing with me (or assuming bad faith).

*are the death zones not going to be death zones? Are the half measures we're willing to pursue in the interest of preserving our way of life (i.e the problem) going to meaningfully mitigate those death zones?

The whole purpose of my post is understanding. We're all choosing to spend time informing ourselves and discussing this poo poo, somebody might not draw the same conclusion as you but I doubt anybody who bothers to read and post here doesn't care. Seeing somebody who indeed cares deeply become a ... "perfectionist nihilist" (I guess?) isn't their personal failing, it's indicative of the crushing tragedy we're watching unfold.

Well define "meaningfully". You could argue it doesn't make a meaningful difference to cure 1 child of a given disease if 99 other children can't be cured. I would argue that anything that makes a positive difference is worth doing whether or not other, better options exist or it is meaningful or sufficient or adequate etc by whatever preferred arbitrary definition.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2023 15:16

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

bird food bathtub posted:

Nothing in electrifying vehicles is going to the root of the problem and saying "Burning dead dinosaurs is going to kill everything, you need to stop it".

Eliminating internal combustion engines, which is what burns oil, seems like a good way to stop burning oil. The remainder of oil consumption is essentially plastic and I don't think plastic consumption is held back by cost or could realistically grow enough to pick up the slack. In any case it's a lot easier to ban oil if the cost to the average person is to do without cheap consumer plastics and not suddenly being stranded in the suburbs without transport.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2023 01:20

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Adenoid Dan posted:

Greenwashing is doing PR and making small investments that make people think your company is greener than it is. For example, going to a fossil fuel funded institute to talk about how the engines you make will be hydrogen powered by 2050

But I've got some great news about Shell's green energy initiatives!

Edit: I am fine with making shell the enemy of the good, because they are

I suppose they could wait to make hydrogen vehicles until the hydrogen sector has been transitioned to green sources but it's not obvious how that would be beneficial. Surely getting the technology developed and in place so there's a demand for green hydrogen is better than just burning diesel until some arbitrary threshold where a sufficient amount of hydrogen is green to no longer qualify as greenwashing.

The European Commission has proposed to produce 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen by 2030 and to import 10 million tonnes by 2030.. Australia also keeps talking about becoming a hydrogen exporter and Saudi Arabia is actively positioning for it.

To what extend green hydrogen will be used is an open question. We will absolutely need it for some things but how low the price will eventually go and its eventual limitations is still opaque. It's an entire industry and supply chain that is being bootstrapped right now.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2023 18:07

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

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: Jul 17, 2019

I don't think capitalism is really the problem. There's this idea that capitalism is forcing us to behave in this way so if we just get rid of it we'll all be better. Personally I think our species is just kinda lovely. Technology enables our worst impulses and capitalism serves them but ultimately the issue is our values.

People want to drive cars and live in houses and fly on vacation. I see no reason why we would stop wanting that just because our economic system is different. Across time and cultures humans have always desired material possessions and comfort. If we were a different species maybe we'd prefer to learn, experience or work less when we have accumulated excess wealth but mostly we just consume more.

Perhaps a system of government which is not beholden to the wills of electorates which implies authoritarianism but even then you still rely on some support to stay in power so you would not, in fact, have unlimited power. In any case the people that end up on top could have any conceivable set of values.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2023 21:09

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Correct

But it’s possible to make large changes rapidly. We just aren’t choosing to.

We can consume more which is what we're doing. The question is if we can build our way out of this or we will have to reduce consumption and how people would respond to that.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2023 23:43

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

cat botherer posted:

The key to solve climate change is to endlessly nag people and focus on individual responsibility, and hope that billions of people spontaneously change their behaviors, irrespective of any material conditions or incentives they find themselves in. Companies such as BP are at the forefront of this fight, with innovative ideas such as getting people to calculate their "carbon footprint."

This also works great for reducing crime rates! We just need to get people to understand that murder is bad, and then we won't have murders.

fake edit: Isn't there already a vegan thread specifically for this kind of tedium?

Well if people don't think those behaviors are harmful then they won't support measures that will restrict them. If people are admired and idolized for living in giant mansions, driving hypercars and flying on weekend retreats you're going to be fighting a very uphill battle trying to tax or ban it.

Sweeping dramatic societal changes needs a popular foundation. We can't just quietly smile and nod when people do these things and then turn around and say we need to ban cars or we'll probably all die. If we want to make changes in society then we need to first have the conversations that enable them.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2023 18:33

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Professor Beetus posted:

Exactly, a means of fighting climate change that continues with largely the status quo of what spoiled American babies want will simply lead to the status quo of the world's poorest suffering under our boot. How noble of us to find a way to keep producing pointless wasteful garbage while the world burns around us and we take the rest of the world with us.

You don't have to care about the standard of living of spoiled Americans but realize that the vast majority of Americans do care and you can't reduce their standard of living without some popular support regardless of the economic or political system you envision.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2023 21:26

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Adenoid Dan posted:

It sounds like we need to teach a lot of people that other people are humans with feelings and rights.

I think that is fundamentally possible, call me an optimist.

When that has been accomplished I'm sure things will work out. Looking forward to it.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2023 22:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 06:36

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Things are proceeding apace in Antarctica.

BBC posted:

A catastrophic die-off of emperor penguin chicks has been observed in the Antarctic, with up to 10,000 young birds estimated to have been killed.

The sea-ice underneath the chicks melted and broke apart before they could develop the waterproof feathers needed to swim in the ocean.

The birds most likely drowned or froze to death.

The event, in late 2022, occurred in the west of the continent in an area fronting on to the Bellingshausen Sea.

It was recorded by satellites.

Dr Peter Fretwell, from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), said the wipeout was a harbinger of things to come.

More than 90% of emperor penguin colonies are predicted to be all but extinct by the end of the century, as the continent's seasonal sea-ice withers in an ever-warming world.

"Emperors depend on sea-ice for their breeding cycle; it's the stable platform they use to bring up their young. But if that ice is not as extensive as it should be or breaks up faster, these birds are in trouble," he told BBC News.

"There is hope: we can cut our carbon emissions that are causing the warming. But if we don't we will drive these iconic, beautiful birds to the verge of extinction."
....

# ¿ Aug 27, 2023 17:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet