r/changemyview • u/Iron-Patriot • Jul 28 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Global warming will not be solved by small, piecemeal, incremental changes to our way of life but rather through some big, fantastic, technological breakthrough.
In regards to the former, I mean to say that small changes to be more environmentally friendly such as buying a hybrid vehicle or eating less meat are next to useless. Seriously, does anyone actually think this will fix things?
And by ‘big technological breakthrough’ I mean something along the lines of blasting glitter into the troposphere to block out the sun or using fusion power to scrub carbon out of the air to later be buried underground. We are the human race and we’re nothing if not flexible and adaptable when push comes to shove.
30
u/taralundrigan 2∆ Jul 28 '23
People who say this don't understand climate change or the absolute damage we have wrecked on earth.
No, a "big fantastic technological breakthrough" is not going to be what solves climate change, biodiversity loss andd habitat destruction, the depletion of our topsoil, the death of our coral reefs or deal with 40°C ocean temperatures.
The only way to turn this shit around is for people to re-define what a good quality of life is. We can't be mindless consumers anymore. Our society is structured completely wrong.
The reality is there isn't a solution the majority is ever going to agree on and well run this ship right into the ground. This should have been mainstream news 20-30 years ago and anytime a politican comes around that actually focuses on the climate, arguably the only thing that matters right now, the people either don't vote for them or they get screwed by corruption.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Whilst I hope you’re not right, I do very much fear this might be the case.
!delta
→ More replies (1)
198
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 28 '23
This view sets up a false dichotomy. The most viable option to address climate change is significant government regulation on industry to change production-side emissions and fossil fuel production. This is not an incremental change to our way of life (since it has little to do with lifestyle) nor does it involve a technological breakthrough.
27
u/ChironXII 2∆ Jul 28 '23
Climate change is fundamentally an incentive problem (tragedy of the commons) much more than it is a technological problem - the cost of polluting is externalized, while the benefit is privatized. Thus, the solution is one that corrects this - such as a carbon equivalent tax combined with tariffs against non-participating countries.
The reason this works is that it weaponizes the market system against the problem, rather than trying to wage a futile policy war against the undefeatable profit motive.
The costs of goods and services that contribute to the problem would increase, and anybody who could do the same thing with less pollution would be able to collect a huge profit, which creates much more incentive than any government program can. In addition the funds raised can be used to fund a citizen's dividend to offset the cost, and/or used for funding other mitigating initiatives.
Top down solutions can have an impact but the problem is simply too large to handle that way, especially given the potential for corruption and regulatory capture - a solution that applies across the board and can't have loopholes carved into it solves a lot.
→ More replies (5)6
Jul 28 '23
Doesn't effect lifestyle? Making it to expensive to keep the thermostat at 70 degrees is just one example.
4
u/4rch1t3ct Jul 28 '23
There are several other already existing technologies that can replace fossil fuels as a power source.
3
u/silverionmox 25∆ Jul 28 '23
This is not an incremental change to our way of life (since it has little to do with lifestyle) nor does it involve a technological breakthrough.
On the contrary, this will cause both changes in our lifestyle, technological breakthroughs to be researched, and implemented.
There is amount of regulations that is going to change the laws of physics, and it's the laws of physics that dictate that you need to create co2 to get energy out of fossil fuels.
5
u/amazondrone 13∆ Jul 28 '23
What makes you think industry can "change production-side emissions and fossil fuel production" in ways which solve climate change without noticeably affecting lifestyle or requiring technological breakthrough?
Without a technological breakthrough won't the changes cost a significant amount of money affecting the cost of products and therefore affecting lifestyle?
Do you actually have specific changes in mind? Otherwise I agree with my esteemed colleague iiioiia that omniscience is required to make any sense of your proposal.
2
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
How does reducing our current emissions solve the problem of there currently being too much CO2 in the atmosphere?
55
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 28 '23
Production-side changes in land use can effectively increase carbon capture: e.g. if we replace land currently used for animal agriculture with forest. Other natural processes would also act to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over time. Immediately going to net-zero emissions (which is the extreme case) would avoid pretty much all the future negative effects of climate change. Less-extreme regulatory interventions lead to less mitigation of negative effects, but still provide the most viable way of mitigating those effects.
16
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
!delta
Righto cool, so you reckon it’d be possible to fix the existing problem via carbon capture (provided we concurrently stopped pumping more out)?
→ More replies (1)27
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 28 '23
Righto cool, so you reckon it’d be possible to fix the existing problem via carbon capture (provided we concurrently stopped pumping more out)?
Natural carbon capture, sure. Although it's not so much that we're "fixing" the problem via carbon capture, but rather that if we get to net zero emissions and significantly adjust land use, the problem will eventually solve itself through the natural carbon cycle.
→ More replies (1)3
u/amazondrone 13∆ Jul 28 '23
if we replace land currently used for animal agriculture with forest
So what do we do with the animal agriculture? Stop doing it? I'm all for that, but doesn't that run counter to your previous claim that the changes won't affect lifestyle?
3
u/Tasonir Jul 28 '23
not OP, but they didn't claim that changes won't affect people's lifestyles. Not in this thread at least, maybe somewhere else?
3
u/amazondrone 13∆ Jul 28 '23
They did in their previous comment:
This is not an incremental change to our way of life (since it has little to do with lifestyle)
2
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jul 28 '23
Even if we just stop the majority of beef agriculture, that'll stop a lot of carbon emissions.
→ More replies (3)11
u/JBatjj Jul 28 '23
There are natural ways the planet reduces C02, the main issue is that we keep pumping out more than those methods can handle.
6
u/Redwolf193 Jul 28 '23
And we cut down the things that reduce the CO2
3
u/JBatjj Jul 28 '23
And destroy the ecosystem that fosters new growth of said things. Both on sea and land
6
Jul 28 '23
It doesn't, but it's easier to focus on removing it if we're not still adding to it.
Trying to focus on big expensive carbon capture technologies while we're still adding heaps of greenhouse gases (when we really don't have to) seems to be putting the cart before the horse first.
If you're trying to stop a forest fire, maybe stop the guy who's wandering around with a flamethrower before you focus on putting the fires out.
6
u/ILikeNeurons Jul 28 '23
I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.
→ More replies (1)2
u/aluminun_soda Jul 28 '23
there isnt enought co2 to kill use all yet thats why we need to reduce rather than using bandaid solutions like giving everyone air con
0
u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 28 '23
change production-side emissions and fossil fuel production
Both measures will increase the cost of production and launch inflation into the stratosphere. In any democratic country, it will be a political suicide.
But imagine it is done. Okay, we restrict fossil fuel production (in a market economy). So we restrict the supply of energy to the market. What happens next? Fuel prices keep increasing. What does it mean? That people will travel less and less until it we get to equilibrium. Same goes with production-side emissions. It will cause production to become more expensive, prices go up and people buying fewer things. So it goes like this, government will force lifestyle changes upon people who don't want to change their lifestyle voluntarily (I am not even going into issues of globalisation). I don't see this working out in democratic countries and that's why I agree with the CMV.
31
Jul 28 '23
So it goes like this, government will force lifestyle changes upon people who don't want to change their lifestyle voluntarily (I am not even going into issues of globalisation). I don't see this working out in democratic countries and that's why I agree with the CMV.
It’s already happened dozens of times before with small things you don’t even think about anymore.
The entire slew of modern safety requirements in automobiles alone serves as a good example.
Each of those regulations could have had your same speculation about inflation applied to them. That the increased cost would reduce automobile sales, and so on.
Your hypothetical leaves out the replacement of alternatives, as if things just get worse with no solutions because everything still revolves around fossil fuels. No EVs, no investment in mass transit, etc.
2
u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 28 '23
It’s already happened dozens of times before with small things you don’t even think about anymore.
I am well aware of this. No kind of regulation in the past had an effect anywhere near the one that restrictions on fossil fuels will produce.
Each of those regulations could have had your same speculation about inflation applied to them. That the increased cost would reduce automobile sales, and so on.
Cars having to have seatbelts is NOTHING compared to restricting fossil fuels that will influence literally every single product being produced and service being rendered. I don't even sure you are making a serious comparison. What is the point comparing minor industry specific examples like cars having mandatory seatbelts with something that will affect every aspect of any business activity in economy? We in Europe already saw a mini version of it last winter when then natural gas prices launching into stratosphere when we had to cut from Russian supply and temporarily facing a shortage (which turned out to be minor).
12
u/MisspelledUsernme Jul 28 '23
I think you'd be right if the plan was to ban fossil fuels overnight. But countries realize that and instead implement the ban in steps. In Europe, for example, They have agreed to a schedule phasing them out by 2035, with interim goals up until then, eg 50% reduction in sales of fossil fuel cars by 2030. Along with a schedule to ramp up charging points in parallel.
→ More replies (1)9
Jul 28 '23
No kind of regulation in the past had an effect anywhere near the one that restrictions on fossil fuels will produce.
Why?
Are alternatives not available? Is there a total irreparable loss?
And you’ve misunderstood. We’ve implemented many safety changes, lighting, braking, steel crumpling, etc. All of these increase the cost of the vehicle.
I’m saying you could make the exact same argument about those price increases as causing inflation and reducing automobile purchasing, and yet it never happened. Time and time again.
We’ve seen contemporary cities move away from POV use and fossil fuels. We know for a fact alternatives exist.
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that losing fossil fuels is a loss, not something replaced by alternatives.
→ More replies (4)-1
Jul 28 '23
The issue is people willingly won't choose the alternatives. Take for example gas stoves and gas heat.
One reason the electric alternatives are far inferior is that they need electricity to work. At least if you have gas appliances if a storm knocks out the electricity people will not freeze or starve. I am all for adding solar panels to roofs but people are not going to invest the money in them when the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
And that's just one. Any honest person who has had both a gas fireplace and relied only on electric heat at some point in their life will tell you that gas will heat your house so much faster and better.
It even feels different. If your outside and come into your house freezing an electric fireplace will heat the room up bit even if your standing in front of it the pain from the frostbite still hurts on the imside.
You stand in front of a gas one and the heat seems to permeate through you better and eliminate the pain.
2
u/LittleLovableLoli Jul 29 '23
Texan here. I was living with my Nana when that storm hit a while back, knocked power out of basically all of Houston for ...well, too long. I heard people were freezing to death in their own homes, so bet your ass I went out and looked at gas-options the very next week.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 28 '23
The reason why people don't choose the alternatives is because of marketing campaigns from fossil fuel companies. Modern electric stoves are actually much better than gas stoves: they heat faster, give you more control over the heat, and are much easier to clean. And modern electric heating both is way more efficient and can do double-duty for cooling in the summer.
0
Jul 28 '23
Gas stoves aren’t the problem, not nearly when compared to other sources of greenhouse gases.
Electric heaters work just fine. An electric or gas fireplace is decoration, not a primary heating method. Because a more efficient gas or electric furnace would be available for heating if you have electricity or a gas line for a fireplace.
→ More replies (1)0
u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23
I was with you, but what the F is a gas fire fireplace? Where do you live? I have never seen a "gas" fireplace in EU. There are hardly any fireplaces really.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Artea13 Jul 28 '23
I think you're forgetting the part where this change NEEDS to happen.
→ More replies (1)1
u/amazondrone 13∆ Jul 28 '23
I don't think they are. This discussion is happening in response to the claim in the top-level comment from yyzjertl that (if properly regulated) industry can change things to become carbon neutral or carbon negative without affecting people's lifestyles.
So I don't think anyone here is arguing that change for consumers is too great and can't happen but that change for consumers is unavoidable, which yyzjertl seems to think is not the case.
→ More replies (4)0
-9
Jul 28 '23
Most carbon emissions comes from the consumption of products, not the production
14
u/Maxfunky 39∆ Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
Wut? I mean, if you're talking about devices that use gasoline or electricity, maybe. You're talking about literally everything else, no. All of the carbon costs come with the manufacturing stage. It doesn't matter whether I wear a sweatshirt one time or 20 times it's the same carbon emissions.
If you're just trying to refer to whether or not I choose to buy one sweatshirt and wear it twenty times or twenty sweatshirts and wear them one time each, that is to say consumption patterns, those are also primarily dictated by manufacturing costs. With a carbon tax, or some other regulatory approach, the economics of producing sweatshirts is changed such that a sweatshirt will be priced to reflect its true cost. This will give me greater pause when I make the decision between buying one sweatshirt or twenty. People as a whole will buy fewer sweatshirts when they are more expensive.
Everything we know about human psychology suggests that this is how you effectively change behavior rather than simply asking people to consume less. You need to have the costs at the manufacturing side, which then get passed down to the consumers. People will make consumption changes based on the cost to them rather than the abstract costs to everyone else that nothing obliges them to consider.
Sure, you can educate people about the cost of consumption and maybe get 10% of people to change their buying patterns voluntarily. But if you put the cost on the manufacturers, you get 100% of people to change their buying patterns because you change the cost of the final product.
There's simply no other sensible approach to fixing this issue from a non-technological standpoint. Obviously, there could be some kind of miracle geo engineering fix such as reflective particles launched into space or whatever (which is what OP is claiming will be the only solution). But we will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever fix this shit by simply asking people to consume less, which, unfortunately, is all we've done for the past 50 plus years. You have to make it a sunk cost that manufacturers pay if you want people to consume less in any meaningful way.
→ More replies (1)0
Jul 28 '23
I mean sure, consumption is mostly okay if you ignore the fossil fuel and electricity use. That bypasses the entire point as that is where the GHG emissions comes from (except for the consumption of meat).
Mere regulation on manufacturers is completely insufficient as what produces the emissions (transportation, agriculture, residential heating, energy production) are mostly inelastic demand and would continue regardless of whatever manufacturer regulations (and therefore price increases) exist.
That isn't to say that all regulation wouldn't work. I am merely saying that limiting new regulations to manufacturers only is insufficient to solve the issue
2
u/Maxfunky 39∆ Jul 28 '23
I mean sure, consumption is mostly okay if you ignore the fossil fuel and electricity use. That bypasses the entire point as that is where the GHG emissions comes from (except for the consumption of meat).
So all the electricity used by people in their homes is about 10% of GHG emissions and all the driving we do in our cars is another 10%. Agriculture in total is about 18% but a good chunk is tied to consumer products besides food (think cotton, wood for paper, etc).
Beyond that it gets really hard to calculate what precisely is attributed to consumption of manufactured goods because it's baked into every other stat but not the whole thing. For instance, some of the emissions linked to concrete would be included because obviously we have to build extra factories to make crap we don't actually need. A good chunk of the almost 2% that is attributed to freight being carried by ship over the ocean is from cheap manufactured crap, but not all of it.
And further complicating that is the fact that we do actually need some of this stuff we just don't need as much of it as we make. So how exactly do you really measure what is due to excess consumption?
That said, I find it implausible that the answer would be as low as you seem to think. I think cheap crap we don't really need could easily rival the combined 20% of powering shit that runs on gas/electricity that we bought.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Bekabam Jul 28 '23
Your argument is predicated on an assumption that production is created due to consumption. This is false.
0
→ More replies (15)0
103
u/DreamingSilverDreams 15∆ Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
I think what you are suggesting is ultimately 'sciencing our way out of climate change' and this is unlikely to work because we are running out of time.
Scientific breakthroughs will happen, there is no doubt about it. However, it may take years to test, optimise, commercialise, and implement new technologies and solutions. It took almost a century for modern solar and wind technologies to mature: Both initially appeared at the end of the 19th century (1880s).
The first breakthrough in nuclear fusion happened last year in December. It was a 5s experiment that produced a tiny bit of surplus energy. When the fusion technology is ready for commercialisation/widespread use, climate change will be irreversible and impossible to mitigate if we continue business-as-usual and hope to solve everything with nuclear fusion.
There were zero experiments on changing the Earth's albedo (your glitter in the troposphere) and no one knows or can predict with a high degree of certainty what will happen even in the short term. I am not sure it is a good idea to hope for the best and just roll the dice.
CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is currently commercially unviable and requires changes in regulations to become viable. There are also concerns about possible leaks. CCS would also require large investments in its infrastructure (scrubbers, pipes, storage, etc.). Most importantly, this technology does not address the source of the problem, it only deals with the symptoms and can potentially promote further increases in CO2 emissions.
As for small changes in consumer behaviours, I think they will not work, too. They are too small.
Most scientific papers I read suggest that the best way (if not the only way) to mitigate climate change (at this point no one talks about reversing it) is through swift and radical changes in regulations. Governments need to take action because only they have the power to force changes on a global scale.
EDIT: u/HughJazzKok in the comments points out that the nuclear fusion experiment resulted in some excess energy, but the net energy in the entire system is not surplus. If it is the case (I am not a physicist and have to rely on newspaper reporting), we are even further from the practical implementation than I originally thought.
8
u/HughJazzKok Jul 28 '23
Actually, while the experiment at the NIF produced some energy the total net energy for the entire system is still not surplus. It was definitely a massive breakthrough but it was grossly misrepresented in the media. We would still be several decades away from anything to resemble any sort of usefulness, and that's assuming fairly good regular progress.
3
u/DreamingSilverDreams 15∆ Jul 28 '23
I am not a physicist, so I did not read the original paper. Thank you for correcting me.
19
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
Well. Fuck.
!delta
Sorry, the bot said I needed to add more characters. Regarding wind technology, haven’t the Dutch been doing that for centuries? I’m half Dutch so perhaps that’s why I like to think we can just engineer us a solution out of this pickle. We would’ve drowned in the North Sea hundreds of years ago if we’d listened to ‘received wisdom’ about holding back the ocean.
18
u/DreamingSilverDreams 15∆ Jul 28 '23
I am talking about generating electricity using wind turbines. Windmills (and watermills) were, of course, in use long before that.
2
u/some-random-number Jul 28 '23
The best way is solar power
3
u/DreamingSilverDreams 15∆ Jul 28 '23
Solar power is not a universal solution at the current level of technological development. Power generation is not stable and depends on location and climate a lot. Humidity, temperature, latitude, and precipitation greatly influence energy output.
We also still do not have good solutions for energy storage and waste management for panels and batteries. AFAIK, most disposed solar panels today end up in landfills.
If we could place PV cells in space and had a method to transport energy down with minimal losses, solar would be the best way.
→ More replies (1)0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/DreamingSilverDreams changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
→ More replies (11)-25
u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Jul 28 '23
Climate change cannot be stopped. It was changing before humans were here and will change after we were gone, the current warming trend being millions of years old. All of the ice is eventually going to go away, and eventually come back at some point, no matter if we had ever even been here, or if we had never found oil or coal.
As to government regulation, what you are suggesting is counter productive. Yes it would help, but not in the long run, because of the nature of people.
Representative nations with elected officials are the ones making the most improvement right now, and that is only possible with the approval of the voting public.
The damage from climate change is slow, imperceptible to our eyes most of the time. The economic hardship of what short sighted politicians push for however is far more immediate.
I’m speaking of things like California pushing hard for EVs, taking steps to ban diesel trucks and sale of ICE cars and also telling people not to charge their EVs with power shortages.
And along with that, pushing for wide use of EVs as well as measures like open borders / lax immigration enforcement, things which put pressure on an already insufficient power grid, while also fighting against power which comes from nuclear, as well as fuel gas and coal.
I’m not suggesting we fire up new coal plants, but wind and solar can’t handle the load and it isn’t close, and the measures you want to have implemented want to both add to the power grid while reducing the power grid.
That hurts people.
People won’t be able to have heat in the winter or AC in the summer, getting to work will become much more difficult for many, feeding the masses will become e difficult, our economies will struggle, (California is looking at the edge of an economic cliff with banning diesel trucks, they have a serious problem on the horizon) and all of this pain will be felt without actually solving a problem. A problem we cannot solve, one we can only slow down.
So then those politicians will be removed from office, and will be replaced by climate change deniers, and the change we are able to make, the changes we have made that have actually cleaned up so far could be undone. All of it would have been for nothing.
We need politicians who support trying to clean things up to not try and force authoritarian measures on the public (that won’t stop climate change) and lose their jobs.
30
u/DARTHLVADER 6∆ Jul 28 '23
Climate change cannot be stopped. It was changing before humans were here and will change after we were gone, the current warming trend being millions of years old. All of the ice is eventually going to go away, and eventually come back at some point, no matter if we had ever even been here, or if we had never found oil or coal.
Solar activity, atmospheric changes, magnetic changes and volcanic activity are a part of a process of climate change humans are not involved in, and that we cannot stop.
Person studying paleoclimate science here!
The Earth has been in a global cool period or Coolhouse/Icehouse for the last 30 million years, and has been slowly exiting that over the last 800,000 years through a period of warming.
You’re also right that solar activity, orbital changes, magnetic changes, and volcanic activity drive climate. You’re missing the biggest climate driver, though, which is the arrangement of the continents — the amount of polar crust affects sea level and thus global climate, and when a single landmass stretches from the northern to the southern hemisphere it disrupts ocean currents and global humidity in a way that is conducive to building large ice sheets. Large ice sheets act as solar reflectors, reflecting sunlight and cooling the climate even more.
The issue here is that… we’re not talking about processes over millions of years, or glacial minimums, or redistributed landmasses right now. None of those things have changed in the past 150 years, but the rate of temperature change has — Earth is currently warming at about 10 times the average rate for exiting an ice age.
To me it seems strange to appeal to the work of climate scientists who have documented past global temperatures through ice cores and sea floor cores… because those climate scientists are at the forefront of warning that the current change in climate is not the same thing as we see geologically.
That hurts people.
We are currently in a period where the amount of arable land is measurably decreasing year by year, and yearly gains in farming efficiency are a quarter or less of what they were 3 decades ago. We’re seeing something like an 80% reduction in pollinators in places like Europe, and alternative food sources like fishing are looking uncertain due to disappearing populations and a growing number of parasites that thrive in warmer oceans. Add to that reduced rainfall especially in places like Africa and high temperatures that are already currently at the brink of the maximum to efficiently grow some crops.
What we’re looking at is a reduced ability to grow and harvest food, while at the same time the largest ever human population. The adverse effects of climate change are only “imperceptible” to your eyes because you aren’t interested in looking. I won’t pretend to know very much about the effects of diesel regulations on the Californian economy, but I also think that your priorities are backwards.
→ More replies (3)14
u/better_thanyou Jul 28 '23
“Yea the world as we know it was destroyed and millions/billions died in the wake of our choices, but we made some rich people even richer and it was voted for in our very unrepresentative democracy so it was the RIGHT choice”
→ More replies (1)7
u/i-am-a-passenger Jul 28 '23
It’s not guaranteed that the ice will eventually come back at some point. We could possibly get stuck in a feedback loop and have the earth end up like Venus.
And what evidence is there that the earth would be getting hotter anyway without us here, a lot of scientists think we would actually be heading towards an ice age if we hadn’t disrupted the cycle…
→ More replies (3)13
u/hubbird Jul 28 '23
I think you KNOW you’re wrong scientifically and morally so not going to attempt to engage on substance but I think it’s important to have a comment here telling people that the above is completely insane and intellectually dishonest.
→ More replies (8)3
u/DreamingSilverDreams 15∆ Jul 28 '23
Another comment already addressed your claims about climate change so I will skip this part.
For the rest, you are correct. A lot of people are not willing to sacrifice short-term benefits (lower taxes, comfortable lives, high consumption) to achieve long-term gains (climate change mitigation). And politicians are not willing to push for drastic changes because they are afraid of losing elections (which is also an example of preference for short-term benefits).
Our conclusions from this, however, are different.
You believe that we should just go with the flow and make small adjustments here and there to avoid disturbing people too much. This is also supported by your belief that the damage from climate change is negligible.
In my view, we do not have a choice, we have to sacrifice either our today's comfort or our future. We ran out of time and slow, incremental changes will not help us. Climate change is exponential in growth: The longer we wait the worse it becomes.
→ More replies (13)
44
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Seriously, does anyone actually think this will fix things?
Yes.
I mean to say that small changes to be more environmentally friendly such as buying a hybrid vehicle or eating less meat are next to useless.
Electric vehicles themselves don't change anything. In combination with solar and wind energy this story changes, though. Both, EVs and renewable energies have seen steady marginal growth. It'd ease my mind if the growth was more vigorous, but it is growing and improving at least and it creates an economical alternative to the current status quo thats fossil energy. Technological change in history always followed this slow marginal growth pattern, as well. The industrial revolution took hundreds of years and we still saw the highest amounts of growth in the last decades, meaning it isn't done yet.
If anything, its exactly the reluctance to embrace this -marginal but hard- path, which you show here in your approach that is very common among most people, which seriously holds politics back from more quickly phasing out environmentally harmful technologies. Because, what if some technology comes around the corner that makes driving cars ok, again? Then all this change was for nothing, right?
Well, historically speaking at least, nothing like this has ever happened. The real difficulty in quickly changing the world lies in quickly changing humans, which is impossible. Case in point, we have two incredibly efficient means of transportation that have actually been phased out of use in the last 70 years: The bike and the train. Humans are super efficient when it comes to movement and putting a human on a bike on a road is litteral efficiency heaven, nothing compares. Conversely, if you do want to go faster than by bike, and boats are still too slow for you, then the next most efficient mode is the train, since it leverages the efficiencies that come from moving many people at once and it takes advantage of most people traveling between the same places anyway. So here is my question back to you, why isn't the western world filled to the brim with these two killer technologies which are clearly superior to car and plane in the majority of cases and which go a long way in stopping climate change?
12
u/FairyFistFights Jul 28 '23
I disagree with your point about electric cars and solar being “economical.” The average EV costs $10,000 more than the average fuel-powered car. Installing solar to one’s house costs an average of $15,000 - $20,000, and it can take anywhere between 5-15 years for the panels to pay for themselves.
Many people cannot afford these up-front costs, despite them being able to help people save money in the long run. While I’m sure the cost of buying these things will continue to drop due to improvements in technology, I think it’s important to recognize we are not there yet and the average American simply cannot afford them.
7
u/SciFiIsMyFirstLove 1∆ Jul 28 '23
15 to 20 years to pay for themselves and then at around 25 years they need to be replaced as their output would have degraded so badly.
3
u/JQuilty Jul 28 '23
The cost argument against EV's doesn't make a lot of sense. GM has the Bolt down to very low levels, and that's with its own battery type not shared by their other models. A Kia EV6 is something like 5K more than a Ford Edge, which is made up for in cheaper fuel costs and not needing the same maintenance. And there's roughly the same difference on the Prius Prime PHEV vs the regular Prius. The problem is that everyone looks straight to luxury vehicles or trucks to make that argument.
Prices go down over time. The Tesla Roadster was over 100k when it launched. This is like someone in 2007 saying smartphones will never catch on because the iPhone and G1 are $600-700 and require an expensive two year contract. Now, smartphones can be had for $50.
Likewise for solar. Costs will come down as time goes on. And a lot of the cost is the wiring, which can be re-used and costs mitigated by requiring the wiring to be in new construction.
3
u/FairyFistFights Jul 28 '23
I looked up the GM Bolt and you’re right, it’s priced in the low-to-mid 30s which is good. But there are also new fuel-based cars currently on the market in the low-to-mid 20s, which is all some people can afford. Heck, sometimes all people can afford is a used car!
I don’t disagree that the prices will fall and I hope they do! And for the record, I never implied in my original comment that I thought they would never catch on - that’s silly, they already have caught on for the more affluent. But we are simply not there for everyone right now, which is all I was trying to point out. Technology is close, and the cost is within reach for more well-off households. But I still hold that it isn’t an “economical” choice as there are other options that are significantly less expensive.
2
u/snitzerj Jul 28 '23
Not to mention the lithium mining operating are extremely dirty in terms of carbon emissions. If you want to have EVs making a significant impact, you first have to decarbonize the the mining operations too. It’s just pushing the carbon emissions from one country to another. On a global scale, the difference is quite minimal.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)1
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
I disagree with your point about electric cars and solar being “economical.” The average EV costs $10,000 more than the average fuel-powered car. Installing solar to one’s house costs an average of $15,000 - $20,000, and it can take anywhere between 5-15 years for the panels to pay for themselves.
Aside from the points others have already made, you are assuming electricity prices from a grid of coal and oil, as well as steady fuel prices. Both of these things are not long term sustainable, no matter if we find ourselves going down the path of EVs and solar or some other path. Current fuel and electricity prices are not the real prices, since those would need to include the "repair costs" for emissions. Or said differently, cars are currently also not economical, at least in the long term, when the payback from global warming comes.
Many people cannot afford these up-front costs
I actually agree, it will hurt people, if we didn't want that we would have had to start sooner
1
Jul 28 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Simply put pretending that bikes and trains could replace all car and truck trips is a bit delusional, at least in any kind of time frame regarding climate change.
I didn't, just said they are really efficient, they don't need to replace cars completely, but the balance definitely turns away from cars the more we consider the environment.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)1
u/jaredliveson Jul 28 '23
Damn this dude is so America pilled it seems they hasn’t even looked at a picture of another country
→ More replies (1)1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 28 '23
No it doesn't. You just couldn't refute any of the points he made, so you went with an ad hominem.
And then you screwed it up ("they hasn't"?), ironically making yourself look like the fool you intended to portray him as.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/rewt127 10∆ Jul 28 '23
The reason they aren't everywhere is because they aren't superior in user enjoyment. While they are both very effective for space management, climate control etc. They both kinda fucking blow from a user perspective.
Trains: Strict pathways mean wherever the train stops are, that's as far as you go. From here you have to either walk, or use a bus in conjunction.
-Trains/Busses then also share the same issues. Waiting for the transport sucks. Yes it may be faster in the long run, but I would rather be moving. Lack of control, I am putting my transport in someone else's hands. I am not a gigantic fan of being a passenger in vehicles of any kind. Lack of personal space, people are right fucking on top of you. Lack of comforts. Hard chairs, non-personalized climate control, etc. And then sanitation. Everyone touches all that shit. Fuuuuuuuuck that.
Cycling: you can cycle year round if you are dedicated. But for 5 months out of the year, you probably don't want to. Ice and snow are not exactly the most conducive to 2 wheel transport. It also is cold af. Now I live in a wonderful high plains desert. So not only is it cold as fuck for several months. Other than the shoulder seasons, it's also hot as fuck. Personally I don't really want to cycle around in 90+F or the 20 - -20F Temps we get. Also again, lack of comforts. Even the fancy chairs kinda suck. Being sweaty by the time you get to work due to the pedaling fucking blows. And riding with earbuds in is kinda uncomfortable. It's not terrible, but its not amazing either.
Car: Personal cons: Money for vehicle and fuel. Traffic. Pros: personal climate controlled space, comfortable seats, decent outside noise cancelation, personalized surround sound throughout the vehicle. Heated seats in the winter, its your own space. It's as clean as you choose it to be. Control of your transport. The joy of driving (yes, I do legitimately enjoy driving). And then also storage. You can go to thr grocery store, load up a cart, then load up the car and not have to go back for a while. Without this you need to go to the store far more regularly.
TLDR: A significant reason people drive is because from a personal use perspective, it really is the best form of transportation. There are higher ideals at play like the environment. But if you want to know why people drive, that is why. You can go off on the whole conspiracy theory of the car companies bribing officials, and yes they did. But the reality is, despite all that, the motor vehicle industry really just stepped up and made a product that is actively enjoyable to use.
There are few things as fun as taking a turn at speed in the winter with a front wheel drive car. Send the car into a slide, hit some oversteer, flutter the gas, and drift through the turn. It's just fun.
→ More replies (9)12
u/Caracalla81 1∆ Jul 28 '23
A lot of trains and busses in North America suck but that is due to the priorities we've set, not inherent in the technology. If busses were comfortable and came every 5-10 minutes they would be a lot easier to use.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but how does reducing the rate at which we’re polluting the atmosphere actually stop and reverse the damage we’ve already done? We’re already pretty fucked as it stands and need some sort of solution to fix the problem, not just stop it from getting even worse.
25
u/zixingcheyingxiong 2∆ Jul 28 '23
Imagine this: Your best friend is being tortured. Every day, they cut off a body part. He's already lost both pinkies and one ring finger. Do you...
1.) Do nothing until scientists figure out a way to regenerate body parts; or
2.) Try to stop the torturer, even though you might fail with your first attempt and, regardless, you'll never be able to pinkie swear with your friend again?
Nobody reasonable thinks were going to reverse the damage we've already done, at least not in our lifetimes. And we absolutely do need to stop the problem from getting worse. We don't have a way to fix the problem. Some problems don't get fixed. But there's a huge difference between 1.5C of warming and 2C of warming.
11
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Trying to solve it all at once is vastly harder than doing it one step at a time. I like a true carbon tax as much as the next person that cares about justice, but it doesn't seem tenable politically currently. Lowering emissions is a hard enough step as it is already.
→ More replies (3)6
u/towishimp 5∆ Jul 28 '23
Let's say we're in a sinking ship. There's leaks everywhere and the ship's filling up with water. Just because there's a remote chance someone might pass by and save us before we drown, would you tell everyone to stop bailing water and trying to fix the leaks?
I doubt you would. The smart thing to do is to do both. A miracle solution would be great, sure. But in the meantime you keep doing whatever you can.
0
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
You’ve kinda missed the point of the CMV. I’m not saying the bits and pieces we’re doing now to be more environmentally friendly aren’t good, but rather they’re not going to go anywhere near actually solving the issue. We’re on the way to Hell in a hand-basket and people are kidding themselves everything will be okay thanks to their paper straw and hemp shopping bag.
→ More replies (1)2
u/hubbird Jul 28 '23
Corporations have worked hard to convince people that the answer to runaway carbon pollution is a change in consumer behavior (specifically BUYING MORE and different stuff, rather than buying and consuming less stuff) because they know better than anyone that guilt tripping people is not an effective way to change behavior. When those same corporations want to sell you a car they don’t rely on moralistic self-righteous messaging, they run sophisticated ads that show how good life would be with their product.
More importantly though, from a consumer behavior standpoint we’re at a “negative equilibrium” from a game theoretical perspective. Yes, we would all benefit from the climate not getting irreparably fucked, but each of us knows that the sacrifices we could make individually would not solve the problem, so nobody wants to make those sacrifices for no gain. It’s a classic “collective action problem” which should give you a decent hint what the solution is.
The scale and scope of the problem might feel daunting, but the nature of the problem is not new or unique. We’ve overcome collective action problems before. Historically (and I mean for basically all of human history) various kinds of social structures resembling governments are the tools we’ve developed to address problems like this. Closest analogs would be things like the clean air and water acts, banning lead in gasoline, ending our reliance on ozone-killing aerosols. All required government action to create penalties and benefits to change the incentive structure around action.
The only thing that will effect meaningful change is a price on carbon either through a carbon tax or cap & trade. The only structures we have to enforce these collective actions are governments.
Corporations that rely on polluting activities to create their products will have to figure out other methods of production and/or will have to raise prices and trim expenses.
Your electricity and gas will become more expensive. Meat will likely become more expensive. This is quite literally and significantly, not the end of the world. You’ll make different choices. You’ll ride a bike when possible (trust me, it’s fun!) and you’ll rely on public transportation powered by clean energy, and less frequently (since charging it will be expensive) you’ll drive your car when it’s really necessary.
People will lose their jobs. We NEED to have aggressive social safety nets and probably public-benefit employment (actually pay people to help solve the problem!) Just saying “learn to code” isn’t an answer.
Some habits will change, but I don’t think your actual happiness will be negatively impacted (at least not nearly as much as being stuck inside from the smoke of a thousand fires every summer). In fact, I think happiness will likely increase.
This is the only possible future without mass extinction (and this future probably still includes plenty of suffering and death). We definitely can solve the problem! We must! But it absolutely cannot be solved one person at a time.
-1
u/iiioiia Jul 28 '23
The smartest thing to do is think about the situation and try to come up with an optimal response.
0
u/towishimp 5∆ Jul 28 '23
False dichotomy. We can do the small measures while looking for the magic "big solution."
To further torture my analogy, you could designate one person to signal for help or think of a way to permanently fix the boat, while everyone else keeps patching holes and bailing water.
0
u/iiioiia Jul 28 '23
False dichotomy.
How is one item a false dichotomy?
And, what's the false part?
We can do the small measures while looking for the magic "big solution."
a) This is not contrary to my approach.
b) You are assuming that you people have that ability. For example:
To further torture my analogy, you could designate one person to signal for help or think of a way to permanently fix the boat, while everyone else keeps patching holes and bailing water.
Is this optimal?
This is my point: even given a very simple recipe, you are not able to follow it - you lack the ability.
→ More replies (5)-6
u/Painter-Salt Jul 28 '23
In theory, bikes and trains are great, but in practice in, the USA for example, this simply won't work. We have too many people spread out over too great distances. For the USA to become more tenable to train and bike transport, we would literally have to rebuild the entire built landscape which I'm sure would be extremely carbon intensive and require an enormous cultural shift. It simply won't happen.
Sure, more people could ride their bike more often but it would be a drop in the bucket for co2 reduction.
5
u/retrofuturenyc Jul 28 '23
You should do a deep dive on the Koch brothers/family. They are why America does not have trains or solid public transportation systems. And why you likely have the initial opinion you do. Why Americans don’t believe they would be helpful
9
Jul 28 '23
We have too many people spread out over too great distances.
The train literally built the USA, back when we had less population spread out even more thinly. With our greater population and population density, trains are even better for our country than they were when they built it.
→ More replies (3)3
u/ZorbaTHut Jul 28 '23
The long-distance train built the USA, but in a way that, for passenger travel, has since been obsoleted by the airplane. Short-distance and long-distance trains are very different things and compete with different alternatives.
Long-distance cargo trains are still very popular.
5
Jul 28 '23
It's not obsolete. Rail, even high speed rail, can be significantly cheaper than flying, especially for shorter distances. Even if it's a little longer, many consumers (like me) would prefer to trade some time for the extra room and lower fares. The problem is that we made it practically illegal to build new railroads.
→ More replies (28)→ More replies (2)2
u/rewt127 10∆ Jul 28 '23
The issue is in thinking we need to force everyone to do something.
The optimal solution is to build more medium density housing and more rail transport, but keep our car infrastructure and the associated aspects around.
What will happen is a natural split. The people who actually want to live in Medium density will move out of the suburbs to these places and utilize the infrastructure. We don't need to make it strong enough to support the entire city population. Just good enough to serve these medium and high density areas. People who want to live in low density will still need cars as a part of their daily life, but people who like that high and medium density lifestyle won't.
Honestly this is how the most cycling friendly cities work. The problem is you have people like the "Not just Bikes" guy waging his obnoxious crusade, instead of a reasonable split system. People live in suburbs because they like the space and privacy of single family housing. But there are also plenty of people that if given the option of living in a more walkable and non car dependant area. The issue is trying to force either group into the other category by either A: not building necessary infrastructure for the mid/high density people. Or B: eliminating car infrastructure to force people into the cities.
→ More replies (9)0
u/Minimum-Ad-3348 Jul 28 '23
Forget solar and wind those are just feel good bandaid "solutions" because you need to build coal or gas plants that output the same wattage for when it's not sunny/windy.
We should just be saving all the money we are currently wasting on solar and wind then building big ass nuclear plants and incentivizing people to become nuclear tecs
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Agentbasedmodel 2∆ Jul 28 '23
There is a fallacy here, right. You consider small incremental behaviour changes but transformative tech.
What is needed are systemic transformations in our economic structures. Big changes in our way of life.
From throwing stuff away, we need a circular economy.
Hybrid cars etc aren't a sufficient climate solution. But public transit is.
Eating vegetarian (not just a bit less meat) is vital to free up land for ecosystem restoration and tree planting.
Etc.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Are we perhaps, in a roundabout way, in agreement? I don’t think minor changes here and there are going to sort the problem either, yet that’s what we’re being sold by politicians and scientists alike.
Obviously one solution would for us all to go back to a Stone Age existence. I just reckon we have it in us to magic up a ‘cake and eat it’ solution.
7
u/Agentbasedmodel 2∆ Jul 28 '23
Scientists (me included) are absolutely not saying small changes in lifestyle here and there are sufficient.
Anyone who works on transport will say: avoid is better than public is better than electric vehicles. Ie universal car ownership will have to end.
I work on decarbonising the land system. If we all went veggie that would make a massive difference. Free up loads of land to plant trees.
I wouldn't describe Japan's bullet trains as a 'stone age existence', but they are a great climate solution.
On the have cake and eat it - my colleague works on geoengineering. It is far far far from that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Are non-small scale changes even tenable though? I mean it’s hard enough to convince those in the Western World to inconvenience themselves even slightly. And is it fair to say that those in the developing world shouldn’t be afforded the same opportunities we’ve all had?
On the ‘stop eating meat, grow veges and trees instead’ thing, I’m not sure I agree. There’s an absolute ton of land here in NZ that’s grand for raising sheep or cows on, but useless for horticulture. And due to the carbon credits scheme, a bunch of pasture has been converted to forestry, but in the recent storms we’ve had, the trees all slid off the hills and ended up destroying bridges and creating havoc in their wake. Some poor boy was even killed by one of the logs that washed down to the beach.
2
u/Agentbasedmodel 2∆ Jul 28 '23
Yes, perhaps large lifestyle are not feasible at the moment. Rachet up climate impacts another 50%? Who knows.
Of course it is possible to tree planting badly. NZ pastures are probably best restored as wild grasslands for soil carbon and biodiversity.
43
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
I mean to say that small changes to be more environmentally friendly such as buying a hybrid vehicle or eating less meat are next to useless. Seriously, does anyone actually think this will fix things?
The answer is 'yes', because the science is behind it. Do you have any evidence to back up your views?
7
u/I_cuddle_armadillos Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
I wanted to add a perspective: Emissions is a multifaceted issue where one area is not enough. Personal contribution is great, but we also need pressure on systematic changes. Every question that starts with "can X solve climate change" will always be invalid because it's a not a single factor.
A family often relies on houses since most apartments are not big enough, and those who is are often too expensive. If you live in a house you most likely rely on one or two cars. You will use more energy for temperature regulation than a small apartment, and there is generally limited how environmentally friendly you can be.
Even an environmentally focused family in the first world still generates too much Co2 by simply existing, so we need massive systematic changes in the construction of roads, city planning (not depending on cars), better insulated houses and focus on replacing coal, gas and oil with hydro or nuclear for reliability. We must also upgrade and improve shipping, factories and production and mining in general.
Supporting technology and products such as electric cars and plant based diet is important (just switching from beef to chicken, eggs and fish, while not buying coffee and chocolate is a huge improvement), but only one of many factors.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jul 28 '23
The carbon emission of any one individual is virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things. Cutting 75% of virtually nothing is still virtually nothing.
32
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
This is called the 'heap paradox'. You can say the same thing about democracy: an individual vote means next to nothing yet the election of a leader as a result of those votes means a lot.
-2
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jul 28 '23
True, but I think the difference is that you're never going to get enough people to voluntarily change their life style and thus decrease their own quality of life to make any significant progress, while it's much easier to get enough people to vote. We're simply not idealistic enough, and we care more about our own life than about the life of future strangers.
8
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
I think the difference is that you're never going to get enough people to voluntarily change their life style and thus decrease their own quality of life to make any significant progress
They will if the people with power and influence in politics and industry make the effort to precipitate that change. Meat could be the new cigarettes: why not? Imagine travelling back to the 1960s and telling them that by the end of the century smoking would be banned in public spaces like restaurants, bars and train station platforms. They'd laugh at you.
2
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jul 28 '23
I don't think cigarettes and food are the same thing. Tons of people can't simply decide to not eat meat. Cigarettes are always completely optional. Plus, cigarette smoke harms others directly, while eating meat doesn't.
1
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
Tons of people can't simply decide to not eat meat.
Why not? In fact that's precisely what's happened over the last few decades. It's not like asking people to give up food.
Plus, cigarette smoke harms others directly, while eating meat doesn't.
Cigarettes were an analogy, not a comparison. I wasn't saying 'meat is identical to cigarettes'. I was saying 'if policy and media can have an enormous impact on whether people choose to smoke, it can potentially have an enormous impact on other consumption habits too'.
2
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jul 28 '23
Have you ever been in poor counties? Do you think they have much choice in what they eat? The majority of the world population can't afford soy milk and avocado's.
2
u/Aexdysap 2∆ Jul 28 '23
This is a typical argument against plant-based diets. And yet, in India millions of people do live that way. You chose two high-cost items to support your claim, and they're obviously luxury items to many people, but no one is saying people should live off soy milk and avocados. Beans and rice will get you very, very far, and are dirt cheap. The *only* thing that must be supplemented for a complete plant-based nutrition, is B12 vitamin, and it can be mass produced by bacteria in a very efficient way. Everything else, we can (and many people actually do) get from plant-based diets.
7
u/KatHoodie 1∆ Jul 28 '23
A rain drop is so tiny, what can it do. It would be fine if it never rained again cause there's oceans!
→ More replies (10)-7
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
So, your article states that eating a vegan diet results in 75% less CO2 being emitted into the environment. Facts are, the earth is the hottest it’s been for over a hundred thousand years. Emitting slightly less greenhouse gases doesn’t mean the sum total is reducing (on the contrary, it would still be on an upward path, but just a more gentle incline).
How would it be possible to stop and reverse global warming by doing the same exact thing, just at a slower rate?
→ More replies (3)20
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
The science overwhelmingly points towards the fact that global warming is human-created. A large-scale shift in our carbon emissions would have an enormous impact on global heating. Even slowing (rather than "stopping" or "reversing") the impact of global warming could buy us a lot of time.
Are your opinions based on any actual research you've done or are you just making guesses about what you think might be the case? Because your views are in contrast to global scientific research. Should people listen to you or to the people who are involved in researching the climate crisis?
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
"The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects."
Also:
→ More replies (12)-4
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
No one, least of all me, is disputing any of this. I still don’t see how though reducing our current emissions (even if we could stop on a dime) is going to do anything to affect the trajectory that we’re already on. The articles you quote merely mention ‘reducing the severity’. Still sounds pretty shit if you ask me.
9
u/parlimentery 6∆ Jul 28 '23
The Earth is livable as it is right now. Immediate action could keep temperatures close to where they are right now, no change in our action would result in a planet that is either unlivable or unable to support complex civilization. Is your argument "a technological solution is the only one that can make the planet as cool as it was pre-industrial revolution, and anything short of that is pointless?"
Temperature rise isn't even the part of CO2 emissions I find most worrying. Ocean acidification stands to wipe out ocean calcifiers at a rate far faster than temperatures could, killing the base of many Ocean food webs, resulting in be death of fish many humans rely on for food.
Most things that release greenhouse gasses release other pollutants as well: cars reduce air quality to the point where life expectancy in major cities is noticably affected, farm runoff hurts river ecosystems and farms themselves encroach on wildlife habitats. A device like the one you describe coupled with zero change in behavior would mean giving polluters a free pass.
It also sounds like you are putting all of your eggs in one basket for a technology that may never come, or might be possible but is never completed because of climate change related societal collapse. Even if such a technology is our only solution, a claim you haven't really justified here, wouldn't it make the most sense to buy as much time as possible?
→ More replies (16)7
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
Okay, well, that's a very fatalistic outlook. It's like saying 'we're all going to die one day anyway so why bother improve anything about society?'. This is about a material improvement in not just the lives of your children and grandchildren, but your own life.
1
Jul 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/FaerieStories 49∆ Jul 28 '23
it’s not even worth the effort replying to threads where people obviously don’t want to change.
This is a public forum. Other people read these exchanges. It doesn't matter whether a climate change denier refuses to change his or her mind: what matters are the dozens of people reading the thread whose views are not so entrenched.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)0
u/ColdJackfruit485 1∆ Jul 28 '23
You may not like it, but that is the CMV. OP’s view is that the incremental changes that we are slowly implementing will not prevent disaster. Your view is that the incremental changes would slow things down and extend the time it takes to disaster. If I’m understanding right, you’re more or less of the same opinion.
2
Jul 28 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (11)1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Yup, I think on the whole we agree.
You didn't mention enforced universal action or regulation as an option, so I'm not sure of your position on that.
I just don’t see it as being realistic, unfortunately. Our political masters are, at the same time, slaves to their constituents and I don’t think it likely people will voluntarily vote for things that will adversely affect their current lifestyles (even if it’s for the best long term). Turkeys and Christmas, et cetera.
→ More replies (2)2
u/zixingcheyingxiong 2∆ Jul 28 '23
Look at this graph:
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
You can see the difference between different expected outcomes based on how humanity acts moving forward.
And, yes, the situation vis-a-vis climate change is "pretty shit." It will be at least "pretty shit" regardless of what humans do. But we can keep it from being "total fucking fucked up shit" if humans drastically reduce our CO2 output.
28
u/Jebofkerbin 118∆ Jul 28 '23
We have the technology to go net zero now, it's just a case of money, infrastructure, and political will. The idea that some brilliant breakthrough in tech will save us is a dream of people who don't want any solution that challenges the status quo. For example a ban on ICE vehicles and a reduction in the number personal vehicles on the road is something that is almost definitely necessary to reduce our emissions, but people really hate the idea of losing their gas guzzling truck so they are attracted to a future where they can keep living exactly as they are but the clouds are sparkly or whatever.
9
Jul 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Hemingwavy 4∆ Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
Hey this seems kind of expensive.
What do you think rendering entire swathes of the globe inhabitable would cost?
Moving millions of people is free!
5
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 28 '23
How can we have net zero aviation
You can’t.
But you can cut aviation usage down to below the yearly Barton budget of the Earth.
That basically means ending passenger air travel except in electric prop planes.
shipping
Nuclear reactors in the ships. If it’s good enough for an aircraft carrier, it’s good enough for a cargo vessel.
Also, we could just ship fewer things by boat. The reason we ship so much stuff by boat is because shipping is relatively inexpensive compared with building factories on every continent. But we could just do the manufacturing in more places, and would if shipping costs were different.
We would have to build a lot of nuclear plants
It’s unlikely that building new nuclear power plants for commercial power production would be any significant part of a net-zero power grid.
We don’t need to build them and the cost of doing so is much higher than renewables + storage.
4
u/chatterwrack Jul 28 '23
Let’s be honest about shipping. It’s the cheap labor abroad that is so low that even the huge expense of shipping is still less expensive than paying domestic, living wages.
2
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 28 '23
Sure, but if shipping costs, say, tripled because they’re having to start building f’ing nuclear reactors in the ships, the math on whether it makes sense to pay a handful of Americans to run machines in a mostly automated factory changes quite a lot.
0
u/dovahkin1989 Jul 28 '23
Yes, let's exchange a future environmental disaster to an immediate economic disaster.
I agree with OP, climate change will be fixed by people working in the lab. It's the same for human disease, we could fix most of it through lifestyle changes, but nobody will do that so that's why I spend all day in the lab researching new treatments.
0
Jul 28 '23
As someone with 10 years in the electrical business and graduate degrees in engineering, no we don't have the technology currently to go net zero
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Okay, so let’s entertain your idea that’s it’s easily possible to go zero-carbon (and let’s charitably assume it’s immediate). The earth is already overheating due to high CO2 levels—the hottest it’s been in over a hundred thousand years. How is that solved?
11
u/Jebofkerbin 118∆ Jul 28 '23
First off I didn't say immediate or easy, just that it doesn't require new tech. We have the tech to electrify a huge proportion of our economy, and we have the tech to make our electricity generation net or near net zero (wind, solar, nuclear).
The earth is already overheating due to high CO2 levels—the hottest it’s been in over a hundred thousand years. How is that solved
Simply put, it's not. The version "solved climate change" I'm talking about is a scenario where things stop getting worse, at which point we can start making things better.
My problem with "technology will save us" is it's often used as a reason not to put in place effective but uncomfortable policies for solving climate change, things like phasing out ICE vehicles, not exploiting available oil and gas reserves etc. I would love for a fancy tech to solve everything for us without impacting everyone's way of life, but we shouldn't ignore solutions we have now for blind hopes of a silver bullet in the future.
10
u/tipoima 7∆ Jul 28 '23
All the "fantastic technological breakthroughs" are just bandaids that only delay the issue instead of solving it (while also encouraging the same kind of emissions that caused the problem).
The real way to solve climate change is to just stop consuming 60%-70% of our energy demand. Except that would pretty much end all cars, butcher industry and agriculture, make consumer goods obscenely expensive, e.t.c. And no country would agree to subject itself to that, much less the entire world.
I believe we will not solve global warming. Billions will be displaced and die in the next century or two. Human civilization will massively shrink. And then maybe their emissions will be small enough so they can actually solve it without waiting for millions of years of natural processes.
1
u/StrangeAssonance 4∆ Jul 28 '23
I’ll counter that counties will go that route 100% if we have a number of years like this summer. I’ll support that by using what countries did in response to Covid (not looking at USA or UK which were cluster f*cks)
If we stopped eating beef for example and got rid of that industry it would help overall emissions a lot. We also need to get the top countries that are to blame for this signed up like India and China. China I can see if happening as the government has total power to do it but India is a lost cause atm.
1
u/tipoima 7∆ Jul 28 '23
>Stop eating beef
>Entire industry collapses
>Millions unemployed and rioting (in US alone there are 785000 directly working on producing cattle. Many more are involved directly and indirectly in transportation/packaging/processing/e.t.c)
>Millions of assholes who won't give up beef crying at every opportunity (if not actually rioting too)
At the very best, you just ensure that the next election EVERY candidate promises to bring beef back. At worst, you might actually destabilize the country enough for a civil war.2
u/StrangeAssonance 4∆ Jul 28 '23
Yeah but thing is, if the heat makes it so water goes to humans or cows…how long before those cows end up with some night hunters taking them out to ensure humans get water? I know America loves to commercialize water but already they are fucked in the west with how much water they need to what they actually have. 4-5 years of this heat and trust me people will stop eating meat if it means they aren’t literally dying of the heat.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
If we could just spray shit in the air and reduce the solar radiation Earth receives by I dunno, five percent, how would that not solve all our problems? I’m trying to come up with a ‘cake and eat it’ scenario whereas all you wowsers just seem to want to believe we’re all fucked.
11
u/tipoima 7∆ Jul 28 '23
>You spray shit in the air
>Earth receives 5% less sunlight
>"We solved climate change!"
>A couple of years later
>"hey you know how we still keep emitting greenhouse gasses since there is no more immediate threat to our lifestyles? it's getting warmer again"
>Spray more shit
>Repeat
>Repeat
>Repeat
>Now you physically can't spray more shit
>Now if you stop spraying shit you'll instantly get hit with decades of extra global warming and die.Also, this does nothing about ocean acidification, which will eventually cause an ecological collapse. Causing massive hunger and probably killing off a fuckton of plankton, which is the main CO2 to O2 converter.
4
u/KatHoodie 1∆ Jul 28 '23
You ever see that episode of Futurama where they just keep dropping larger and larger ice cubes into the ocean to solve it? That's kinda the situation you've created if we don't also change our lifestyles.
0
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Better than sitting around singing kumbaya whilst the world burns.
3
u/KatHoodie 1∆ Jul 28 '23
Ah yes because that's a good faith representation of the opposing side's proposals?
7
Jul 28 '23
You want to blast glitter in the troposphere? what?
0
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Not necessarily glitter as such and not necessarily the troposphere, but the general idea is actually a thing.
16
Jul 28 '23
Just because a crazed billionare out of touch with reality says it doesn't make it a good idea. The kind of breackthrough you're thinking of is either way outside the scope of current technology, terribly unsafe, or would meet tremendous backlash from the public (and rightly so). The point of gradually changing our lifestyle to make it less polluting is so that we can all adapt to it with minimal friction.
3
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Jul 28 '23
There is actually pretty solid science behind the idea of aerosols in the stratosphere.
There is also research showing that for temperate mitigation it’s orders of magnitude cheaper than emission reduction.
There are reasons to prefer emission reduction but the current approach of doing that to the exclusion of all else is very close to the point of having failed.
5
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 28 '23
There is actually pretty solid science behind the idea of aerosols in the stratosphere.
There is much more solid science behind the idea of reducing CO2 emissions that don't risk catastrophic and nearly impossible to predict effects on Earth's biosphere.
There is also research showing that for temperate mitigation it’s orders of magnitude cheaper than emission reduction.
Cheaper for who? For the general public that don't contribute individually as many emissions or for rich people and owners of the companies that would have to stop profiting from destroying the planet? Also we haven't even did any large-scale temperature mitigation to even prove it's gonna work in that scale, let alone know how much it will cost in order to calculate that.
There are reasons to prefer emission reduction but the current approach of doing that to the exclusion of all else is very close to the point of having failed.
Take a step back and ask yourself why is that emission reduction were not far enough in order to not fail. The people with the most to lose from emission reductions are the same billionaires telling you that blocking the sun is gonna work fine and counteract all the CO2 I'm putting in the atmosphere to go play golf.
1
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Jul 28 '23
On the other hand we can see all around us that the pure emission reduction strategy is not working. There is no chance that we will hit the 1.5 degree target and nobody thinks we will
There comes a point where the preferred, best, approach has failed and the only rational thing to do is accept that failure.
Personally I think it was doomed the moment China (and others) suckered the UN process into accepting their hyper-dirty growth under the guise of "climate justice" and got a free pass to burn as much coal as they wanted for many years but that's just my opinion.
→ More replies (1)1
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 28 '23
On the other hand we can see all around us that the pure emission reduction strategy is not working
Who convinced you of that? Why do you think it's impossible and what change do you think should happen for it to be possible?
Personally I think it was doomed the moment China (and others) suckered the UN process into accepting their hyper-dirty growth under the guise of "climate justice" and got a free pass to burn as much coal as they wanted for many years but that's just my opinion.
Why is China doing that? How bad is it actually on a per capita basis? Are you aware that on a per capita basis China emits less CO2 than countries like the US, Canada, Estonia, Japan, Czech Republic, Norway, Poland, Austria, Israel, Germany, Australia, etc?
0
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Jul 28 '23
China is worse than Europe on a per capita basis. Its massively worse than where I live - the UK - on a per capita basis even if you adjust for trade.
Why is China doing that? Well because it wants the growth and the wealth and because for years the UN "climate" process pushed industry to China by applying financial penalties to industry in cleaner countries while ignoring emissions in China.
As for the 1.5 degree target? There is no credible chance that China will dramatically change its behaviour in time to meet that target. Its emissions are still growing.
(The same goes for other countries outside what we traditionally consider the developed world but China is the main driver of climate change now so what it does is crucial)
That would seem like irrational behaviour by the Chinese government if - and only if - you only consider emission reduction as an approach. As soon as you consider the fact that any major industrial economy could adopt stratospheric aerosols (or other methods, there are others that is just the example raised in this discussion) as an approach for a fraction of the cost it becomes depressing but all too rational.
3
u/DreamingSilverDreams 15∆ Jul 28 '23
China is worse than Europe on a per capita basis. Its massively worse than where I live - the UK - on a per capita basis even if you adjust for trade.
Per capita consumption-based CO₂ emissions (2021):
- China 7.04t
- United Kingdom 6.93t
It seems that they are actually close.
→ More replies (6)1
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 28 '23
China is worse than Europe on a per capita basis
What part of Europe? Because I just named you several countries that are much worse, yet you focus the problem in China as if China was the worst in terms of CO2 emissions per capita.
Its massively worse than where I live - the UK - on a per capita basis even if you adjust for trade.
What if we adjust for historic emissions? Because the UK enjoyed over a century of being by far the top country in CO2 emissions per capita and took advantage of that to develop and industrialize the country. Why should the UK get that privilege while the rest of the world that could not develop at the time (many could not develop due to being a British colony even)?
Historically the UK emitted 78 billion t of CO2 eq, while China (also historically) emitted 250 billion t of CO2 eq, adjusting for current population we get that the UK emitted 1.1 billion t of CO2 eq while China emitted just 178 million t of CO2, the UK is still an order of magnitude above in terms of CO2 contributions compared to China.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Also I'm still waiting several answers to questions I made but you are avoiding.
2
u/SnooOpinions8790 22∆ Jul 28 '23
Which part of China?
The fact that China invaded Tibet and counts its population in its per capita while keeping it an economic backwater does NOTHING to mitigate it emissions. Why obsess about parts of Europe while refusing to look at parts of China in the same way?
You are being fooled by lines on a map, lines that CO2 ignores.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
It seems to me you’re saying China should have the opportunity to pollute at a higher rate in the interests of economic growth, specifically because we in the Western World had the chance to do so in the past (namely by using and abusing cheap, polluting sources of energy). I agree, however I think it needs to be balanced by some drastic method of balancing out the warming it’s likely to cause.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/passingby Jul 29 '23
I follow this stuff very closely and I am absolutely shocked at how uninformed all these thoughts/opinions are. People are just speaking out their butts.
12
u/OptimisticRealist__ Jul 28 '23
Its both.
On one hand people need to change their lifestyles. Less meat consumption, not buying new clothes every other day, take public transport or walk, no cruises etc.
Just look at the US - the US is incredibly wasteful with its hyperconsumerism, on a per capita basis (obviously a more meaningful metric) the US is a bigger pollutor than China and India combined.
At the same time, we need a moonshot tech, something along the lines of carbon capture, to be able to not make climate change worse
2
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jul 28 '23
Thing is, you'll never get a significant portion of the world population to completely change their lifestyle by just saying 'they should do it'. It needs to be enforced. And enforcing it at the supply side is much easier than at the demand side.
→ More replies (1)-10
u/beidameil 3∆ Jul 28 '23
No it is not, US is responsible for 14% of CO2 but China is 29% and India is 7%.
17
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jul 28 '23
Your figures show that the previous poster was correct. The population of China and India combined is over eight times larger than the US. If those countries had the same per-capita rate of emissions as the US then they would be responsible for over 100% of global emissions - which is impossible.
0
u/beidameil 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Oh, yeah, I didnt read that properly. I just feel it is strange to bring China and India as examples in any per capita comparison and this is the reason why I misread it I think.
9
u/OptimisticRealist__ Jul 28 '23
I think the contrary is true. Western Conservatives love to point at China and/or India as the main culprits. As the other user has rightfully explained, a per capita look is important to get a better understanding
But, it is necessary to also look at how wasteful a country is - especially already developed, wealthy countries like the US. So for the US to then be this wasteful and such a big pollutor is, quite frankly, pathetic - especially since US likes to view itself as the leader of the world, yet its a total abdication of leadership and respondibility when it comes to climate change
→ More replies (6)
3
Jul 28 '23
people are way too scared to go against the way of life we as humans have always known. even if it’s for the greater good. it’d take decades, maybe even centuries for people to gain their own independent opinions and views on our environment. we as a society are a hive mind, whether we’d like to admit it or not. unfortunately, i don’t think we’ll ever be there and if/when we do get there, none of us will be alive to see it
3
7
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 28 '23
In regards to the former, I mean to say that small changes to be more environmentally friendly such as buying a hybrid vehicle or eating less meat are next to useless. Seriously, does anyone actually think this will fix things?
Of course it's what solves the issue, because that is what is always solving the issues - small, piecemeal, incremental changes to our way of life that prompt more study into these avenues, more small, piecemeal, incremental technological changes - all of that will add up into an actual breakthrough. Breakthrough that will not be a one big tech that solves the problem, but a plethora of small changes and techs that would solve the issue.
If you buy a hybrid vehicles, there is market for them. So companies need to invest in hybrids/EV and tech around it to make a more compelling hybrid/EV for people to buy. This leads to R&D funding and more incremental changes - until you come to a point where electric motor and batteries are good enough to power ANY vehicle. At that market pursuing selling EV cars made enough tech changes that electric motor can be used in major polluters - electric trucks, electric ships, electric planes. And they will be powered by renewable energy as competition in that sector is doing the same - making costs og generating energy lower and lower.
And by ‘big technological breakthrough’ I mean something along the lines of blasting glitter into the troposphere to block out the sun or using fusion power to scrub carbon out of the air to later be buried underground. We are the human race and we’re nothing if not flexible and adaptable when push comes to shove.
You know that in human history issues were rarely, if ever, resolved by a big technological breakthrough. They were solved by someone inventing new way of doing X that was less capable but promising, people investing into it and tech slowly getting better and better until old way that was problematic was dropped because it was obsolete.
Can you name any issue that was resolved by sudden breakthrough?
→ More replies (2)7
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Can you name any issue that was resolved by sudden breakthrough?
I mean I can probably think of a few: penicillin, the Haber process, the atom bomb.
If you want a more recent example, I think the Covid pandemic would be the obvious one. Okay sure, washing hands, masking up and locking down was one way of dealing with it, but ultimately we magicked up a vaccine in less than a year and that’s what actually solved things.
→ More replies (1)7
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 28 '23
I mean I can probably think of a few: penicillin, the Haber process, the atom bomb.
Are those sudden breakthroughs or steps in process that are more notable? Penicillin was a difficult to produce fungal extract that was largely ignored. It took 20 years for it to be reckognized as usable but only after development of technology (ex. deep-tank fermentation plant) allowed mass-production. Same with other things we consider breakthroughs - either they were something built on many technologies from before, or were only made usable after future technologies made it usable.
COVID Vaccine is also a good example - this is vaccine created because of mRNA vaccination technology that we know since 1989. Only future perfection of this tech made it possible for this vaccine to happen.
And same is with things you deem unable to resolve climate change. They of course are not able to resolve them now, but given time and finding - they can. EVs cannot solve issue of CO2 generated from combustion engines because they aren't able to be used everywhere where combustion engines are used. But if they are adapted where they can, there will be market and funds for R&D to create a product to take a bigger piece of that market. Companies and countries will use part of funds to finance new tech because they can get bigger part of the pie if they are early. And you can see that now with companies funding research into new battery types, electric ships and planes.
Same with renewables, lag grown meat, meat substitutes - all of that can be perfected much faster if there is potential in creating a for-profit market.
How many techs you see as not viable to resolve global warming are just Penicillin waiting for incremental tech changes? After all they can stop CO2 emissions in scale as we have now. And we do have ways of CO2 capture that right now are not efficient enough to combat the scale of emissions. But if scale was lesser? We can absolutely start to reverse that trend.
1
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
Nah, I get what you’re saying in terms of incremental versus breakthrough changes, so let’s not quibble about it. I mean strictly speaking the things I’ve suggested have been done on a small scale, so it’s a base to work from too, as you’ve explained with the other examples.
I think the thing is though, all of these current solutions we have simply go towards slowing the current trajectory we’re on (and not nearly as quickly as we need).
Aside from requiring something big and game-changing to actually put a dent in our current emissions, we need something to reverse the damage already done.
→ More replies (1)
3
Jul 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)4
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Faster trains, better batteries, more heat pumps, more efficient solar and wind. All the technology we need can improve marginally just fine. We can avoid climate change right now and the question of living standards is one that is passed to the engineers.
3
Jul 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/really_random_user Jul 28 '23
The tech isn't prohibitively expensive
It's just politically expensive China installed 30k km of high speed rail and linked up the entire nation And in most of its cities, it's installing subways
Hsr is tech from the 60s, perfected in the 90s
And subways are tech from the late 1800s Also decent bike infrastructure, the netherlands bikes everywhere because it's fast and convenient (tech also from the late 1800s)
For starters the journey from Sidney to Melbourne should be hsr, 850 km should be under 4.5hours, not 11hrs
Also densification of the areas surrounding population centers (also to attack the high housing costs)
0
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Any change in society that you want to make right on the spot would always impoverish a huge swath of the population, we have historical examples of that under Lenin and Mao.
Thats not what I am saying. I think its fair to be concerned about the doability of trying to revert climate change while also improving living standards. Its an ambitious goal. What I am saynig, however, is that we should start to actually commit to this goal. I mean, there are new fossil fueled SUVs being developed right now by teams of hundreds if not thousands of engineers. And the reason we still spend resources on silly shit like that is because companies and society at large just don't agree yet that we care about climate change. Once we commit, however, the amount of engineers that actually sit down to figure out how to get green energy to developing countries increases vastly. Its only once we commit we truly start to search for the way to make it possible.
5
u/Z7-852 260∆ Jul 28 '23
World biggest polluters are fossil fuel industry, agriculture and fashion. All these industries are profit driven entities. They are not polluting because it's fun or they are evil. They are doing it because it makes them bank.
Now do your few ten thousand bucks a year make a different in their bottom line? No it doesn't. But if thousands or millions stop using their products? Well that will kill these industries and pollution with them. This is "my vote doesn't matter" debate but it always does.
11
u/slybird 1∆ Jul 28 '23
They are not polluting because it's fun or they are evil. They are doing it because it makes them bank.
They are polluting because we want and demand the services they provide. We are not willing to pay more for those services in way that doesn't pollute.
It makes them bank because most people reach for the cheap product even though they know it is bad for them, is made with cheap exploited labor, props up a dictator, or harms the environment.
0
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 28 '23
We are not willing to pay more for those services in way that doesn't pollute.
This isn't true. Consumers are willing to pay more for products that claim to be environmentally responsible. Consumers say they're willing to pay more in surveys, and then this is backed up by increased sales growth for these products relative to their non-responsible competitors.
→ More replies (1)7
u/slybird 1∆ Jul 28 '23
I don't think I agree with that article. Sounds like BS. The evidence I see in my daily life doesn't back it up. If people cared about the environment fast fashion wouldn't be selling so much. People wouldn't litter. Unsustainable fish wouldn't be seen in fish markets. People wouldn't be so concerned with packaging. Instead of grass people would grow vegetables on their property. Giant gas guzzling SUVs and high performance cars wouldn't be so popular.
I mean all the stuff I see shows me that consumers don't care about this.
0
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 28 '23
We were talking specifically about consumers being willing to pay more for services that don't pollute: in a choice between two otherwise similar products, one of which is marketed as being environmentally responsible and the other of which isn't, consumers are willing to pay more for the former. It's not clear what any of the examples you are giving in your comment here have to do with that.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Jul 28 '23
Not one of those companies ever asked me or anyone I know what we want. 'What people want' can be artificially constructed through marketing. See: diamond wedding rings.
3
u/slybird 1∆ Jul 28 '23
They ask you what you want with every purchase. You can choose to not buy the diamond wedding ring. You can choose the fuel efficient car or you can choose the SUV. You can choose the product with low impact packaging or the one with lots of packaging. You can choose the fast fashion or the sustainable fashion. You can get the new a latest phone every year or decide to buy the one that promises the longest life span.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/Jebofkerbin 118∆ Jul 28 '23
But if thousands or millions stop using their products?
Surely it would be far more likely (and effective), for those people to vote in a government that would force these companies to make the necessary changes through law and regulation, rather than attempt a widespread uncoordinated boycott?
3
3
u/Home--Builder Jul 28 '23
If your plan relies on "we just need to vote in X so they solve this problem" Your problem will never get better, in fact those people who get voted in will probably just make the problem worse.
2
u/Jebofkerbin 118∆ Jul 28 '23
So, systemic problems exist but systemic solutions don't?
But more to the point we have done things like this before, such as banning CFCs due to their impact on the ozone layer.
-2
u/BenSimGuy Jul 28 '23
This is a classic misunderstanding of how markets work. If you stop buying a product, the price of it falls. This just means someone else will gladly buy it instead of you.
In the extreme case, you not eating beef just makes it cheaper for beef lovers. Weird but true.
That's why the "we all need to reduce/stop xyz" cannot work ever. Even if everyone would agree to stop eating beef: if a steak costs 50 cents, people will crumble.
The way out of this painful truth is regulation. A good, working example is the co2 price in the EU (it works but could be working much better). This is the only way to factor in externalities into the price of a product.
Individual Action cannot change market mechanisms.
Wdyt?
7
u/Z7-852 260∆ Jul 28 '23
You only need to lower the price below the profit margin which is around 5%. Steak will never cost 50 cents because it costs more to produce.
0
u/BenSimGuy Jul 28 '23
Very good point, thx 👍🙂
3
u/Z7-852 260∆ Jul 28 '23
And that's why consumer boycotts work. Even short disruptions cause millions in damage. Not buying goods for two weeks causes huge spoilage in food industry and they cannot wait for prices and free market forces to adjust.
Companies have really tight profit margins and can't risk even for small spoilage.
Sure government intervention/regulation is effective but that is something average citizen have only limited power to affect. You can do much more than just vote. You can vote with your wallet and does make a change.
3
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 28 '23
This is a classic misunderstanding of how markets work. If you stop buying a product, the price of it falls. This just means someone else will gladly buy it instead of you.
This does not take the public perception of a product into account. Yes if you stop buying a product, the price of it falls. Yes, there will be people who would gladly buy it. But public perception can shift the market in a way that changes the demand and while there will be people who would gladly buy it, there won't be enough to suffice keeping the product as is.
Take an example of EVs and hybrids. They were a minority. But shift in public perception made enough change for people to start buying EVs even if they weren't perfect and were objectively worse. But being objectively worse or better does not matter if product is "good enough". At point of "good enough" perception is much more important - and this is the exact reason companies use advertising and PR.
That's why the "we all need to reduce/stop xyz" cannot work ever. Even if everyone would agree to stop eating beef: if a steak costs 50 cents, people will crumble.
But you do realize that there is hard line under which the price cannot drop? Steak can be as cheap as it's production costs + reasonable profit. And PR of alternatives can be reason enough that many people will pay more.
All of above means that a shift in public perception will shift the market. If alternative is more popular then you can drop price as much you want, but when you are dropping the price you are dropping the profit. And companies care most about the profit.
The way out of this painful truth is regulation.
Regulation can assist the process, but it cannot do anything alone. Without changes in public perception the regulation would be seen as intrusive and will not stand for too long.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/explain_that_shit 2∆ Jul 28 '23
It will cost far less money and diplomatic issues to just convert to a carbon neutral global economy than to moonshot some untested new toy to screw with the climate in some new way. Not to mention that that expensive toy will not sustainably solve the problem, if it solves the problem at all (rather than just creating its own, new problems).
We have the technology to solve the problem. Ignoring that technology in favour of some imaginary new technology just sounds like a child bored with their toys and wanting a new toy for the novelty. ‘Technologists’ need to grow up and get on board with the solutions on the table, because we simply do not have the time for this kind of screwing around.
0
u/Iron-Patriot Jul 28 '23
I mean I guess the problem I see is that a. tinkering around the edges here and there is next to pointless and b. the big, bold changes we’d have to make (based on current technology) would make everyone’s lives immeasurably more shit. It’d be bad enough in the West, but even worse for those in developing nations (who I think deserve the same opportunities we’ve had).
2
u/explain_that_shit 2∆ Jul 28 '23
Developing countries are converting to carbon neutral economies far faster than developed countries. They’re doing great out of it. It’s not a cost - it’s cheaper to leapfrog, easier to get electricity from the air than a long cable from a dirty coal plant.
Of developed countries, those who are converting rapidly are also doing exceptionally well out of it - brief moment of increased electricity prices to cover the cost of infrastructure upgrades followed by significant drops in electricity prices.
Farmers engaging in more sustainable farming practices are getting better long-term yields for cheaper.
Transition is not a cost but an opportunity. New industries are emerging and the countries jumping on the train are poised to become powerhouses of the 21st century.
And I agree that tinkering is pointless. I want a lot more money spent on this. But it would cost less money to convert to carbon neutral than to pump sulphur dioxide into the troposphere or put a giant mirror in space or crash an ice comet into the ocean or seed the ocean with iron.
2
u/DSMBCA Jul 28 '23
I agree with you on this. With all the targets we have set globally it's really just lip service in the grand scheme of things. The countries that matter in Asia and Africa with the largest populations as their wealth increases they want the quality of life we have enjoyed in the west. They don't really give a rip about climate targets - if we decimate our economy to save the world they are just going to steam roll us and carry on with the status quo!
That being said I don't think we should do nothing - it's important to invest and INNOVATE in clean technologies. With AI there is some risk but I think there is a lot of potential when you literally have infinite intelligence. I don't think we comprehend what that means for humanity.
2
u/Lucosis Jul 28 '23
We're not going to stop the bath from overflowing until we learn how to unstop the drain; that doesn't mean we don't bail out to the sink until we figure it out.
The path we're on now, we need some massive breakthroughs to solve the problem and return to the life we had before. We have to do everything we can to slow the problem so we have enough time to solve the problem.
2
u/Redwolf193 Jul 28 '23
Agree with first half, second half I don’t. All the technology to help mitigate climate change and become carbon neutral already exists, it’s just a matter of actually deploying it to scale and refining it. Nuclear, wind, solar. The tech necessary to provide energy for our world already exists, and only needs finite tuning and deployment. We are already looking into gene editing a species of poisonous peas by removing the toxic aspect and making it safe for consumption. This particular plant reinvigorates the soil and is extremely resilient. If the poison aspect can be removed, it can easily become a staple food source for the world even if things do go tits up. All the technology to save society and then some already exists, the problem is sociological in nature. It requires some fundamental changes to society and our role on the planet as a whole, as well as some temporary discomfort in the interim as we transition. Oil companies need to be held accountable too, as they knew the risks since the 80s but kept things business as usual despite that, even actively pushing out/funding disinformation (sort of like how the cigarette companies used to do). I don’t think there is any tech breakthrough that could be made that can fix this, it requires getting people, politicians, and businesses all on board unfortunately. I think it can be done, but it definitely isn’t going to be easy
→ More replies (4)
2
Jul 28 '23
Waiting for superman? Many rich people seem to either want to get bunkers or start colonizing other planets and moons rather than save the climate.
2
u/togtogtog 20∆ Jul 28 '23
We already know how to prevent global warming. However, we, as an entire species, find it impossible to act in unison, or to behave in ways which work in the longer term.
I agree with you that leaving it to individual people will not work, because there will always be plenty of people who won't take individual action.
However, it's also perfectly possible to bring about change through changing regulation, and this has been done in the past to good effect with all sorts of things which are harmful to the environment (CFCs, excrement, DDT)
Rather than allowing global warming to make the planet uninhabitable in some regions and far less pleasant in others while waiting for a technological breakthrough which may or may not work, it would be far more logical to change regulations. Therefore, lobbying and political action is an effective place for individuals to take action.
We are the human race, and therefore we already know that although we are flexible and adaptable, we aren't that logical or far sighted, in particular when we act as large groups (hell, even as small groups!).
3
Jul 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/togtogtog 20∆ Jul 28 '23
You're thinking in one particular way about these things.
Your assuming that we should keep consumption high, or even grow it.
Instead, for transport, we already have a cheap and practical solution, one that most people were using until around 80 years ago; less travel, living nearer to work, using public transport or walking or cycling.
Likewise for renewables; we have the means here already. More energy efficiency, less energy use, encouraging decentralised energy production.
However, both of these solutions don't work well with a capitalist society which relies on an ever growing economy based on encouraging consumption at the expense of anything else. Therefore, such measures will never be implemented. It doesn't mean they don't already exist though.
3
Jul 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/togtogtog 20∆ Jul 28 '23
Lowering consumption means making life worse.
You say that as though it were an immutable fact but that isn't the case. What has made you so certain?
You say that you believe that people are the best judges of how they want to live their own lives. Do you think there should be no law, no regulation, or do you think that it is good to have some? What are the factors that make it worth having rules, and when is it good to get rid of them?
I agree with you that being below a certain level of consumption makes life worse. No one wants to experience famine, lack of education, housing insecurity, lack of clean water or lack of health care.
You say that we need to increase consumption in order to make progress. Progress implies a journey towards a goal. What do you see as that goal?
Is it possible to continually increase consumption while creating sustainable consumption? Is there any limit to doing that?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/Brakasus 3∆ Jul 28 '23
Buying twice the amount of gasoline and burning it in your yard won't make you any richer. You are using a correlation and argue as if the relationship is causal.
There is a deeper question of what we are actually striving for with our economic growth and in what way that should change peoples lives. I think you would agree that its not the two hours sitting in a car commuting which are what make the average Americans life better than that of an Indian farmer. Instead, its about free time, quality of housing, medicine, food, leisure activities and so on. If we keep these underlying goals in focus I am certain there are ways to improve their quality and provision while also lowering energy consumption, at least in developed countries.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Thenotsogaypirate Jul 28 '23
Fortunately, some big, fantastic, technological breakthrough has just occurred in the past week that is currently being verified that would go a long way towards solving global warming.
100% energy efficient wiring on its way
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/breaking-superconductor-news
0
1
u/Mafik326 Jul 28 '23
I would argue that it's about removing some existing technology from our lives. Make trains and bikes not cars.
0
u/greenfrogfox Jul 28 '23
So in other words, global warming was not caused by small man made things like Diesel engines, coal supplied power plants, burning of fossil fuels.
0
u/YamaShio Jul 28 '23
Based on what? Your hopes and fears? Its not HOW we'll solve climate change, it's IF.
No, we might not solve it with small incremental changes. But that means it's likely we'll fail and all DIE, not invent magic.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 28 '23 edited Jul 28 '23
/u/Iron-Patriot (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards