7 ms·

I think the fact that it isn't cheap shouldn't be that much of an issue (although I know it currently is) because the price we (not even our children) will pay

by gyaniv 7y ago

I think the fact that it isn't cheap shouldn't be that much of an issue (although I know it currently is) because the price we (not even our children) will pay because of climate change would be much higher (in pure economic costs, before we start talking about more moral and environmental costs like animal extinction). But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow, or next year (and definitely more then their potential future descendants).

simonh 7y ago
> I think the fact that it isn't cheap shouldn't be that much of an issue... EDIT: Apologies for the combative tone below, what I'm trying to say is, it's not as simple as monetary cost. I'm afraid that's looks like first world thinking. For countries still developing lives are literally at stake right now. Rolling back environmental impact means lower economic growth, poorer infrastructure and therefore people dying in poverty. It's not all bad news on this front. Modi committed India to opening a swath of new coal power stations before coming into office, but has since changed tack with the collapse in the cost of solar energy[1]. Still, this will be new solar capacity and while it's better than more coal it's still environmentally worse than no new energy generation at all. [1]https://www.ft.com/content/b8d24c94-fde7-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521 https://www.ft.com/content/b8d24c94-fde7-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e...
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  > this will be new solar capacity and while it's better than more coal it's still environmentally worse than no new energy generation at all. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Can you elaborate more on this last point? Do you mean to imply that one approach to the problem is to build no new electricity capacity? How will we displaced fossil fuel use for transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, and mineral processing if not with new electricity generation? Or did you mean to imply the world would be better off if India’s poorest continued to suffer in the dark and cold?
  - simonh 7y ago
    All I'm saying is that new capacity to meet an increased demand has an environmental impact even if it is solar. More broadly my point is we cannot expect developing countries to simply stop developing. That's not an acceptable short term cost, as I pointed out when I said lives are at stake. I'm pointing out some complexities in the issue. How you can get from that to me saying poor people should suffer in the cold confuses me.
- tremon 7y ago
  Rolling back environmental impact means lower economic growth, poorer infrastructure This isn't true. It just requires a different development path than Europe and Asia have followed. For example, local power generation can bootstrap a small, isolated economy without requiring massive investments in a nation-wide energy grid. And renewable power (solar or wind) lends itself much better to small-scale deployments than fossil fuel generators.
  - zip1234 7y ago
    Yes, this. Cell phones in Africa are a great example. They skipped right over having land lines and went straight to cell phones.
  - simonh 7y ago
    All of those increase environmental impact, they just do it less than historical approaches. Actually rolling back environmental impact is another thing altogether.
  - bluquark 7y ago
    The last ten years' experience with renewables has shown that local-scale generation is underwhelming and large-scale deployments are the way to go. With the exponential recent declines in production cost, most of the cost of solar is now in deployment, not manufacturing the cells. This has made huge desert installations much cheaper per watt than rooftop -- as a result, large-scale installations is where almost all the growth is coming from. As for wind power, efficiency increases superlinearly with blade length. As a result of this, and improving material science and production/deployment tech, turbines have been getting enormous (Eiffel-tower-sized or more) and no longer fit outside of dedicated wind farms. As for nation-wide grids, they're are a central part of the solution to solar/wind intermittency (because weather patterns average out over long distances).
ximeng 7y ago
A wealthy retiree without kids is going to naturally live for today and not care too much about tomorrow. Suspect there’s plenty of them too.
- simonh 7y ago
  Apart from being uncharitable, that's just not a reasonable generalisation of human behaviour. Plenty of old people with no relatives have died wealthy wile living very simple lives, giving their wealth to charity. Wealthy retirees with lots of relatives have left all their money to their cat, or whatever. It's just not possible to paint big swathes of humanity with a single broad brush.
  - ximeng 7y ago
    I’m not intending to be uncharitable - I agree that there are plenty of people of all sorts. My point is that there will be some people who really don’t care - these could be younger or older, childless or whatever. I am not sure if there is going to be much more than anecdotal evidence on who causes the most damage to the environment and who is likely to change their behaviour due to climate change. I’m also not saying anybody would be wrong to not care about the future. It’s quite understandable to me someone using their freedom to say f the world, question is if everyone needs to be on board to make necessary changes then how do you achieve that. In other words the point isn't the (admittedly unjustifiable) generalisation, it's that there are people who are not going to be on board unless they see something in it for them. Could be a wealthy childless retiree, or it could be someone in their thirties with four kids travelling round the world for work racking up air miles for their career to support their family.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  A wealthy retiree without kids contributes less to climate change than basically anybody that will have kids. His climate impact stops with him, it doesn't for people with kids.
gruturo 7y ago
You can put a price on the planet when you have more than one. Until then, this thinking is absurd.
- ben_w 7y ago
  We do have other planets, relocation will cost roughly $3.75e+15 USD at SpaceX price estimates. IIRC, the global economy is about $1e14 USD/year.
  - ahje 7y ago
    I haven't read the estimates, but that would be relocation only, correct? Assuming that's true, you need to add the costs of terraforming on top of that.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Correct. I kinda assumed the people who moved would build up domed habitats while there until it counted as “done”. Multiply by ten if you want to do it directly, I think?
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        Why can't we just do that on Earth though? If we're going to live in underground caves , like we would have to on Mars, then why don't we just do it on Earth?
        ben_w 7y ago
        Well, yes, I agree — Antarctica in winter and the peak of Mt. Everest are both vastly more hospitable than Mars, but Mars is there if we want to try it.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    We don't "have other planets" in any useful sense. We know there are other planets out there. We're a long way from knowing with even a shred of certainty whether we will ever be capable of relocating to them, let alone when it may become feasible or what it will cost.
ckastner 7y ago
> But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow Absolutely, and to change that, you need to ask why this is the case. There are many reasons for that. Some people are selfish, some are merely short-sighted. This needs to be fixed by changing the mindset. But to me the (by far) biggest problem is that too many people simply cannot afford to think otherwise. Climate change in X years means nothing to someone living in, or close to poverty today. "Green" means nothing to someone hungry today, and it would be absurd and apathetic to expect otherwise. And a very large share of the global population today are poor.
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  This is true, a great deal of good can be accomplished supplying electricity and light and clean water to those who don't have access now. However, the carbon footprint of poor individuals is vastly less per capita than of rich individuals. Every rich person, and you are most likely rich in a global sense, must realize their luck and their lifetime carbon footprint and do their part for decarbonizing, given we are those who emit the most.
- myself248 7y ago
  This is called "eating your seed corn". Do you go somewhat hungry during winter, and possibly starve now? Or do you eat your seed corn now, and have nothing to harvest later, and certainly starve later? Our ancestors figured this out. Some of them did starve during winter. But we're the descendants of the lucky and prepared. Why should the future be any different?
  - germinalphrase 7y ago
    Because the time scale of our situation is different. Those threatened by starvation in winter aren’t the same people who will need the seed corn in spring. That disconnect creates an immediate, imposed suffering on some for the future, anticipated benefit of others.
  - ckastner 7y ago
    This is not "eating your seed corn", as that story is about a single resource, and the short-term planning of when to consume it.

by gyaniv 7y ago

simonh 7y ago

> I think the fact that it isn't cheap shouldn't be that much of an issue... EDIT: Apologies for the combative tone below, what I'm trying to say is, it's not as simple as monetary cost. I'm afraid that's looks like first world thinking. For countries still developing lives are literally at stake right now. Rolling back environmental impact means lower economic growth, poorer infrastructure and therefore people dying in poverty. It's not all bad news on this front. Modi committed India to opening a swath of new coal power stations before coming into office, but has since changed tack with the collapse in the cost of solar energy[1]. Still, this will be new solar capacity and while it's better than more coal it's still environmentally worse than no new energy generation at all. [1]https://www.ft.com/content/b8d24c94-fde7-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521 https://www.ft.com/content/b8d24c94-fde7-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e...

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
> this will be new solar capacity and while it's better than more coal it's still environmentally worse than no new energy generation at all. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Can you elaborate more on this last point? Do you mean to imply that one approach to the problem is to build no new electricity capacity? How will we displaced fossil fuel use for transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, and mineral processing if not with new electricity generation? Or did you mean to imply the world would be better off if India’s poorest continued to suffer in the dark and cold?
- simonh 7y ago
  All I'm saying is that new capacity to meet an increased demand has an environmental impact even if it is solar. More broadly my point is we cannot expect developing countries to simply stop developing. That's not an acceptable short term cost, as I pointed out when I said lives are at stake. I'm pointing out some complexities in the issue. How you can get from that to me saying poor people should suffer in the cold confuses me.
tremon 7y ago
Rolling back environmental impact means lower economic growth, poorer infrastructure This isn't true. It just requires a different development path than Europe and Asia have followed. For example, local power generation can bootstrap a small, isolated economy without requiring massive investments in a nation-wide energy grid. And renewable power (solar or wind) lends itself much better to small-scale deployments than fossil fuel generators.
- zip1234 7y ago
  Yes, this. Cell phones in Africa are a great example. They skipped right over having land lines and went straight to cell phones.
- simonh 7y ago
  All of those increase environmental impact, they just do it less than historical approaches. Actually rolling back environmental impact is another thing altogether.
- bluquark 7y ago
  The last ten years' experience with renewables has shown that local-scale generation is underwhelming and large-scale deployments are the way to go. With the exponential recent declines in production cost, most of the cost of solar is now in deployment, not manufacturing the cells. This has made huge desert installations much cheaper per watt than rooftop -- as a result, large-scale installations is where almost all the growth is coming from. As for wind power, efficiency increases superlinearly with blade length. As a result of this, and improving material science and production/deployment tech, turbines have been getting enormous (Eiffel-tower-sized or more) and no longer fit outside of dedicated wind farms. As for nation-wide grids, they're are a central part of the solution to solar/wind intermittency (because weather patterns average out over long distances).

ximeng 7y ago

A wealthy retiree without kids is going to naturally live for today and not care too much about tomorrow. Suspect there’s plenty of them too.

simonh 7y ago
Apart from being uncharitable, that's just not a reasonable generalisation of human behaviour. Plenty of old people with no relatives have died wealthy wile living very simple lives, giving their wealth to charity. Wealthy retirees with lots of relatives have left all their money to their cat, or whatever. It's just not possible to paint big swathes of humanity with a single broad brush.
- ximeng 7y ago
  I’m not intending to be uncharitable - I agree that there are plenty of people of all sorts. My point is that there will be some people who really don’t care - these could be younger or older, childless or whatever. I am not sure if there is going to be much more than anecdotal evidence on who causes the most damage to the environment and who is likely to change their behaviour due to climate change. I’m also not saying anybody would be wrong to not care about the future. It’s quite understandable to me someone using their freedom to say f the world, question is if everyone needs to be on board to make necessary changes then how do you achieve that. In other words the point isn't the (admittedly unjustifiable) generalisation, it's that there are people who are not going to be on board unless they see something in it for them. Could be a wealthy childless retiree, or it could be someone in their thirties with four kids travelling round the world for work racking up air miles for their career to support their family.
Mirioron 7y ago
A wealthy retiree without kids contributes less to climate change than basically anybody that will have kids. His climate impact stops with him, it doesn't for people with kids.

gruturo 7y ago

You can put a price on the planet when you have more than one. Until then, this thinking is absurd.

ben_w 7y ago
We do have other planets, relocation will cost roughly $3.75e+15 USD at SpaceX price estimates. IIRC, the global economy is about $1e14 USD/year.
- ahje 7y ago
  I haven't read the estimates, but that would be relocation only, correct? Assuming that's true, you need to add the costs of terraforming on top of that.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Correct. I kinda assumed the people who moved would build up domed habitats while there until it counted as “done”. Multiply by ten if you want to do it directly, I think?
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Why can't we just do that on Earth though? If we're going to live in underground caves , like we would have to on Mars, then why don't we just do it on Earth?
      - ben_w 7y ago
        Well, yes, I agree — Antarctica in winter and the peak of Mt. Everest are both vastly more hospitable than Mars, but Mars is there if we want to try it.
- jfk13 7y ago
  We don't "have other planets" in any useful sense. We know there are other planets out there. We're a long way from knowing with even a shred of certainty whether we will ever be capable of relocating to them, let alone when it may become feasible or what it will cost.

ckastner 7y ago

> But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow Absolutely, and to change that, you need to ask why this is the case. There are many reasons for that. Some people are selfish, some are merely short-sighted. This needs to be fixed by changing the mindset. But to me the (by far) biggest problem is that too many people simply cannot afford to think otherwise. Climate change in X years means nothing to someone living in, or close to poverty today. "Green" means nothing to someone hungry today, and it would be absurd and apathetic to expect otherwise. And a very large share of the global population today are poor.

Dumblydorr 7y ago
This is true, a great deal of good can be accomplished supplying electricity and light and clean water to those who don't have access now. However, the carbon footprint of poor individuals is vastly less per capita than of rich individuals. Every rich person, and you are most likely rich in a global sense, must realize their luck and their lifetime carbon footprint and do their part for decarbonizing, given we are those who emit the most.
myself248 7y ago
This is called "eating your seed corn". Do you go somewhat hungry during winter, and possibly starve now? Or do you eat your seed corn now, and have nothing to harvest later, and certainly starve later? Our ancestors figured this out. Some of them did starve during winter. But we're the descendants of the lucky and prepared. Why should the future be any different?
- germinalphrase 7y ago
  Because the time scale of our situation is different. Those threatened by starvation in winter aren’t the same people who will need the seed corn in spring. That disconnect creates an immediate, imposed suffering on some for the future, anticipated benefit of others.
- ckastner 7y ago
  This is not "eating your seed corn", as that story is about a single resource, and the short-term planning of when to consume it.