7 ms·

Not sure how to feel other than sick about this. I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha.

by kylia 7y ago

black-tea 7y ago
I wonder too. I'm completely convinced it will take top-down control by governments or nothing will change. There is absolutely no reason to believe the "will of the people" will do the right thing now for the first time in history.
renholder 7y ago
>I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha. It's the CFC/Ozone Hole problem[0], all over again; only at a much larger and far more damaging scale. Humans, despite all of their best qualities, are still going to human. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Environmental_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Environment...
neuronic 7y ago
It seems like an issue would be the requirement of massive cuts into freedom - possibly preventing people from pursuing their livelihoods. At the very least, these livelihoods have to be significantly shifted. Convincing people to support or even drive these uncomfortable changes in their lives is more than hard. Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people are directly affected. Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers, manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if these new jobs aren't automated anyways. Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die. Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year. Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere? We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Climate change is hurting many worldwide, and it will get worse base on all available evidence. You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) by not fixing it. You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    > You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) my lungs emit CO2, so you must either believe that infringes on your freedoms, or that some emission of CO2 is acceptable. What about the food you eat. How did it get to the grocer? How much energy did it take to produce the nitrogen that was used to fertilize the soil, or to drive the tractor that harvested and plowed the field? What about the structures that you dwell in every day? They took an enormous amount of concrete and steel which rely on fossil fuels to procure and assemble. Unless you advocate going back to a caveman society, carbon emission is so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be eliminated in our generation. And you do not have the right to tell others to live like a caveman.
- vages 7y ago
  I don't think any of the restrictions you mention should be called authoritarian. Nations and the world have made many things illegal in the name of the common good before, e.g. child labor, slavery and leaded gasoline: Taking away someone's "freedom" to poison society and nature with leaded gasoline is really _giving_ the freedom to live a healthy life back to everyone else. All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow/ https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...
- morsch 7y ago
  I agree that it appears unfair that only rich people would end up getting to fly, and that's because it is unfair: we're not used to income/wealth inequality having this particular effect of drastically restricting mobility anymore (though it's only been 50 years[1]). On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing. But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
The problem is that the cost of "actually doing something" and the penalty for doing nothing converge over time. Global CO2 production increases to go up, as does global oil production. These are just the byproducts of the energy needed to pay for our standard of living. The further back in time we go the cheaper and more realistic change would have been. But we live in a world where sustaining our way of life means continuing to use more fossil fuels at a faster rate and produce more co2 at a faster rate. The issue is and always has been that there is no answer to the problem of "sustainability" that also includes limitless growth, and limitless growth is one of the essential conditions of global capitalism. The very premise of venture capital, the fuel of this forum, is that the proceeds of tomorrow can pay for today. More renewables, more clean energy and more electric cars are not the answer to a sustainable future. The only reasonable path towards sustainability is less tomorrow then today, but nobody really wants that, and even now nobody would honestly vote for that. So the path we are on is one in which we see if we can grow fast enough to pay for the consequences of that.
- jellicle 7y ago
  Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, today. There is no reason at all why humans can't continue to use a lot of energy and also cease pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. All that is required is that the changeover be made.
  - tucaz 7y ago
    I don't mean to be rude here, but how else can one respond to such a statement? What's the source of your claim? If solar and wind were cheaper everybody would use it. It's not like there is a conspiracy of companies using a more expensive thing instead of a cheaper one to allegedly keep killing the planet. The only way that it could be cheaper is if you include government subsidies to artificially make it "cheaper" by paying the remaining cost with our tax dollars. But, even if you include that, which is being done to help government friends, it is still not enough.
    - ljf 7y ago
jlarocco 7y ago
As terrible as it sounds, I've kind of stopped caring. I try to reduce my own impact on the planet (99% bike commuting, don't eat much meat, minimal plastic usage, recycle, etc.) and recommend others do the same, but if humans drive ourselves to extinction in the long term, then that's just how it will play out.
- jpm_sd 7y ago
  I also have found the combination of personal environmental impact reduction combined with a sort of "Pale Blue Dot" nihilism helpful in my everyday life.
  - vages 7y ago
    I'm genuinely interested in how you find comfort in nihilism (I currently don't, but I'm not against the thought). Have you genuinely changed your attitude towards the universe, are you just ignoring your sad thoughts, …?
    - jpm_sd 7y ago
      I'd describe it as a kind of "constructive nihilism", which some authors argue is near-identical with Existentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism Nietzsche was kind of a nut, but he had some useful ideas https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/friedrich-nietzsche-the-constructive-nihilist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/friedrich-ni... In my teens/20s, I was miserable in the face of all the suffering and destruction in the world. Now that I'm 40, it doesn't hurt anymore.
      - vages 7y ago
        I'm in my twenties now, periodically overwhelmed by the current and potential future misery of the world. However, I have lately been able to cope with my misery by realizing that my misery is only subjective, which softens it. Perhaps that does not make my feelings misery at all.
dougmwne 7y ago
Serious answer: It would take a small political shift. We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit. Green technologies are already being adopted rapidly. Smart government regulations, taxes, and incentives can speed along these changes. The situation is not hopeless. We're having an increasing impact on the climate, but we're not extinct yet. Vote. Tell your friends to vote. Cultivate green initiatives in your own community. Contribute to environmental organizations. Buy the low carbon alternative. Steer your career to build the future instead of picking over the carcass of the past. Stop waiting on the world to change.
- chris_va 7y ago
  (disclaimer: I am part of a Climate&Energy research group that does some economic modeling of this sort, though this particular solution is still being researched) > We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit. Ironically, with some of the better solutions (e.g. a Carbon Tax), fossil fuel companies may not actually see reduced profit, but that is not well understood by the industry since the reason is slightly subtle. Since energy demand is relatively inelastic, increasing the price only slightly decreases consumer demand. While that by itself is technically a loss for energy companies, a sensible carbon tax also creates a secondary market to dispose of CO2. The majority of the additional consumer cost of energy is actually paying that secondary market to take the CO2. It turns out that disposing of CO2 is primarily an energy cost, which means the net demand for things like natural gas can actually go up. At the moment, my personal favorite solution is to implement a "Carbon Rebate"--basically a revenue neutral tax. You tax CO2 emissions (probably at the source), and create a secondary market to offset emissions to avoid paying the tax. Any revenue from the tax is uniformly redistributed to consumers (perhaps as a tax credit), and you have the "tax" rate ramp up year over year. This establishes price discovery and creates an economic incentive to solve the problem without being significantly disruptive to either the industry or consumers (and somewhat exploits the prisoner dilemma). From a US-centric viewpoint, trade agreements would be required to enforce this tax on goods imported from other countries that are not subjected to an analogous carbon price. Since the import tariffs money would be redistributed to US citizens, it creates an incentive for those countries to adopt a similar policy.
makerofspoons 7y ago
It will probably take until the first day most of the population goes without easy access to food. Once the markets are empty or too expensive due to crop failures and shortages, change will be swift. The question is whether that will be when it is too late.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
Just do the same thing you did to handle the overpopulation scare in the 80s.

Not sure how to feel other than sick about this. I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha.

by kylia 7y ago

Not sure how to feel other than sick about this. I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha.

black-tea 7y ago

I wonder too. I'm completely convinced it will take top-down control by governments or nothing will change. There is absolutely no reason to believe the "will of the people" will do the right thing now for the first time in history.

renholder 7y ago

>I wonder what more it will take to have something actually be done about this, haha. It's the CFC/Ozone Hole problem[0], all over again; only at a much larger and far more damaging scale. Humans, despite all of their best qualities, are still going to human. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Environmental_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Environment...

neuronic 7y ago

It seems like an issue would be the requirement of massive cuts into freedom - possibly preventing people from pursuing their livelihoods. At the very least, these livelihoods have to be significantly shifted. Convincing people to support or even drive these uncomfortable changes in their lives is more than hard. Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people are directly affected. Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers, manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if these new jobs aren't automated anyways. Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die. Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year. Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere? We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...

throwaway5752 7y ago
Your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Climate change is hurting many worldwide, and it will get worse base on all available evidence. You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) by not fixing it. You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  > You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) my lungs emit CO2, so you must either believe that infringes on your freedoms, or that some emission of CO2 is acceptable. What about the food you eat. How did it get to the grocer? How much energy did it take to produce the nitrogen that was used to fertilize the soil, or to drive the tractor that harvested and plowed the field? What about the structures that you dwell in every day? They took an enormous amount of concrete and steel which rely on fossil fuels to procure and assemble. Unless you advocate going back to a caveman society, carbon emission is so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be eliminated in our generation. And you do not have the right to tell others to live like a caveman.
vages 7y ago
I don't think any of the restrictions you mention should be called authoritarian. Nations and the world have made many things illegal in the name of the common good before, e.g. child labor, slavery and leaded gasoline: Taking away someone's "freedom" to poison society and nature with leaded gasoline is really _giving_ the freedom to live a healthy life back to everyone else. All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow/ https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...
morsch 7y ago
I agree that it appears unfair that only rich people would end up getting to fly, and that's because it is unfair: we're not used to income/wealth inequality having this particular effect of drastically restricting mobility anymore (though it's only been 50 years[1]). On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing. But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

The problem is that the cost of "actually doing something" and the penalty for doing nothing converge over time. Global CO2 production increases to go up, as does global oil production. These are just the byproducts of the energy needed to pay for our standard of living. The further back in time we go the cheaper and more realistic change would have been. But we live in a world where sustaining our way of life means continuing to use more fossil fuels at a faster rate and produce more co2 at a faster rate. The issue is and always has been that there is no answer to the problem of "sustainability" that also includes limitless growth, and limitless growth is one of the essential conditions of global capitalism. The very premise of venture capital, the fuel of this forum, is that the proceeds of tomorrow can pay for today. More renewables, more clean energy and more electric cars are not the answer to a sustainable future. The only reasonable path towards sustainability is less tomorrow then today, but nobody really wants that, and even now nobody would honestly vote for that. So the path we are on is one in which we see if we can grow fast enough to pay for the consequences of that.

jellicle 7y ago
Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, today. There is no reason at all why humans can't continue to use a lot of energy and also cease pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. All that is required is that the changeover be made.
- tucaz 7y ago
  I don't mean to be rude here, but how else can one respond to such a statement? What's the source of your claim? If solar and wind were cheaper everybody would use it. It's not like there is a conspiracy of companies using a more expensive thing instead of a cheaper one to allegedly keep killing the planet. The only way that it could be cheaper is if you include government subsidies to artificially make it "cheaper" by paying the remaining cost with our tax dollars. But, even if you include that, which is being done to help government friends, it is still not enough.
  - ljf 7y ago

jlarocco 7y ago

As terrible as it sounds, I've kind of stopped caring. I try to reduce my own impact on the planet (99% bike commuting, don't eat much meat, minimal plastic usage, recycle, etc.) and recommend others do the same, but if humans drive ourselves to extinction in the long term, then that's just how it will play out.

jpm_sd 7y ago
I also have found the combination of personal environmental impact reduction combined with a sort of "Pale Blue Dot" nihilism helpful in my everyday life.
- vages 7y ago
  I'm genuinely interested in how you find comfort in nihilism (I currently don't, but I'm not against the thought). Have you genuinely changed your attitude towards the universe, are you just ignoring your sad thoughts, …?
  - jpm_sd 7y ago
    I'd describe it as a kind of "constructive nihilism", which some authors argue is near-identical with Existentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism Nietzsche was kind of a nut, but he had some useful ideas https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/friedrich-nietzsche-the-constructive-nihilist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/books/review/friedrich-ni... In my teens/20s, I was miserable in the face of all the suffering and destruction in the world. Now that I'm 40, it doesn't hurt anymore.
    - vages 7y ago
      I'm in my twenties now, periodically overwhelmed by the current and potential future misery of the world. However, I have lately been able to cope with my misery by realizing that my misery is only subjective, which softens it. Perhaps that does not make my feelings misery at all.

dougmwne 7y ago

Serious answer: It would take a small political shift. We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit. Green technologies are already being adopted rapidly. Smart government regulations, taxes, and incentives can speed along these changes. The situation is not hopeless. We're having an increasing impact on the climate, but we're not extinct yet. Vote. Tell your friends to vote. Cultivate green initiatives in your own community. Contribute to environmental organizations. Buy the low carbon alternative. Steer your career to build the future instead of picking over the carcass of the past. Stop waiting on the world to change.

chris_va 7y ago
(disclaimer: I am part of a Climate&Energy research group that does some economic modeling of this sort, though this particular solution is still being researched) > We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit. Ironically, with some of the better solutions (e.g. a Carbon Tax), fossil fuel companies may not actually see reduced profit, but that is not well understood by the industry since the reason is slightly subtle. Since energy demand is relatively inelastic, increasing the price only slightly decreases consumer demand. While that by itself is technically a loss for energy companies, a sensible carbon tax also creates a secondary market to dispose of CO2. The majority of the additional consumer cost of energy is actually paying that secondary market to take the CO2. It turns out that disposing of CO2 is primarily an energy cost, which means the net demand for things like natural gas can actually go up. At the moment, my personal favorite solution is to implement a "Carbon Rebate"--basically a revenue neutral tax. You tax CO2 emissions (probably at the source), and create a secondary market to offset emissions to avoid paying the tax. Any revenue from the tax is uniformly redistributed to consumers (perhaps as a tax credit), and you have the "tax" rate ramp up year over year. This establishes price discovery and creates an economic incentive to solve the problem without being significantly disruptive to either the industry or consumers (and somewhat exploits the prisoner dilemma). From a US-centric viewpoint, trade agreements would be required to enforce this tax on goods imported from other countries that are not subjected to an analogous carbon price. Since the import tariffs money would be redistributed to US citizens, it creates an incentive for those countries to adopt a similar policy.

makerofspoons 7y ago

It will probably take until the first day most of the population goes without easy access to food. Once the markets are empty or too expensive due to crop failures and shortages, change will be swift. The question is whether that will be when it is too late.

hombre_fatal 7y ago

Just do the same thing you did to handle the overpopulation scare in the 80s.