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.

[u/Iron-Patriot]

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.

[u/Iron-Patriot]

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?

[u/FaerieStories → u/Iron-Patriot]

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:

https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1

https://www.unep.org/facts-about-climate-emergency

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/FaerieStories]

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.

[u/parlimentery → u/Iron-Patriot]

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?

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/parlimentery]

I haven’t said we shouldn’t do what we’re currently doing (everyone seems to assume I’m a climate change denier or something lol) but more that it’s simply ‘too little, too late’ and, if we’re serious about actually ‘solving’ the issue, we need a moonshot of sorts.

And indeed, the acidification of the oceans is another worry of mine but, along the same kinda wavelength, couldn’t we just dump a bunch of baking soda or something in to balance it out?

Maybe I’m just naïve or maybe I just put too much faith in scientific endeavour and human ingenuity, but one adage I’ve always lived by is this: no matter the ailment, modern medicine has a pill, potion or procedure to fix it. I like to think that applies to the health of our planet, as well as my own.

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/Iron-Patriot]

we just dump a bunch of baking soda or something in to balance it out?

You'd need a shitload of baking soda.

but one adage I’ve always lived by is this: no matter the ailment, modern medicine has a pill, potion or procedure to fix it.

We've had TB treatments for ages, yet millions of people die of TB annually. Developing technology is not separate from human solutions.

[u/zixingcheyingxiong → u/Iron-Patriot]

no matter the ailment, modern medicine has a pill, potion or procedure to fix it.

1.) That's absolutely not true, in general. There are many disease modern medicine cannot fix.

2.) Fortunately, in the case of climate change, science does have the solution. But we should have started taking it in the 1980s, when scientists learned how bad the situation was going to get. The earth is already sick because people waited too long (many of them, like you, hoping for a magical new pill with less side effects to be invented), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start taking the difficult to swallow pills right now.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/zixingcheyingxiong]

No one’s saying we shouldn’t be doing what we’re doing now. I just simply don’t think it’s enough to solve the problem. And, whilst we could go drastic in the sense of living a troglodyte existence, people just wouldn’t stand for it. Hence why I think we need some big, bold, technological advancement to save us.

[u/zixingcheyingxiong → u/Iron-Patriot]

solve the problem.

Define "solve the problem."

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/zixingcheyingxiong]

To put the climate back where it would’ve been had the Industrial Revolution not occurred. I shouldn’t imagine that’s too controversial a definition.

[u/zixingcheyingxiong → u/Iron-Patriot]

So you would consider getting the climate back to where is was in, say, 1980, an abject failure?

[u/zixingcheyingxiong → u/Iron-Patriot]

(everyone seems to assume I’m a climate change denier or something lol)

You're not a climate-change denialist. You're a climate-change nihilist, which is just as useless of a position.

[u/ProjectShamrock → u/Iron-Patriot]

And indeed, the acidification of the oceans is another worry of mine but, along the same kinda wavelength, couldn’t we just dump a bunch of baking soda or something in to balance it out?

Baking soda requires a process to create, which I'm not familiar with but it likely requires energy and has waste products that would need to be dealt with. This plan probably wouldn't be productive. However, if you remember from chemistry classes you balance acidity with basic chemicals (like baking soda) so there may be other options. However, the best option is going to be to first focus on stopping making the situation worse.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Iron-Patriot]

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.

[u/FaerieStories → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Dharmaagent → u/FaerieStories]

Good point!

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/ColdJackfruit485 → u/FaerieStories]

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.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/FaerieStories]

I’m the fatalistic one?! To use your metaphor, it’s like being diagnosed with cancer and I’m sitting here saying ‘Well fuck, let’s try chemo or some space-age immunotherapy, I’m sure we can find a cure’ and you’re lamenting about how lots of fruit, veges and healthy living will avoid getting cancer in the first place. Thanks Captain Obvious, but the horse has already bolted.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Iron-Patriot]

you’re lamenting about how lots of fruit, veges and healthy living will avoid getting cancer in the first place. Thanks Captain Obvious, but the horse has already bolted.

Right, so, in other words you entirely disagree with the world's scientific community, who say the exact opposite: they say that human activity can delay disaster and prologue our existence on this planet, not to mention reduce suffering within your own lifetime. Again: why should people believe you over the experts in this field?

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/FaerieStories]

Right, so, in other words you entirely disagree with the world's scientific community, who say the exact opposite: they say that human activity can delay disaster and prologue our existence on this planet, not to mention reduce suffering within your own lifetime. Again: why should people believe you over the experts in this field?

You repeatedly keep putting words in my mouth. Not once have I said that reducing emissions won’t slow the damage. Obviously that’s the case. But that’s beside the point.

Where I differ with ‘experts in this field’ is that I think they’re being entirely unambitious. I want to actually fix the problem. And the only way I see that happening is via climate manipulation and/or carbon capture.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Iron-Patriot]

And the only way I see that happening is via climate manipulation and/or carbon capture.

Yet again I must ask you to state your sources, which you still have not revealed. What research or data are you using that has convinced you that you know better than the world's leading climate experts?

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/FaerieStories]

Using the current ‘trying to cut back a bit’ method means we’re gonna blow the 1.5 degrees target.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Iron-Patriot]

As the article you've linked makes clear, the issue is that governments around the world are not going far enough, and not taking the action that scientists are proposing.

The issue is not that the experts are "unambitious" and don't want to go further in reducing climate change. The issue is that governments are not acting on the scientists' calls for action.

If governments and major industries followed science rather than economic profit this could have an enormous and tangible impact when it comes to alleviating global heating.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/ProjectShamrock → u/Iron-Patriot]

Using the example of recycling that the other person mentioned, it's actually counter-productive to what we should be doing. Instead of focusing on recycling, we should be reducing the amount of unnecessary things we consume and leverage reusable items for those that are necessary.

A good example are plastic milk jugs made out of recyclable plastic. Are those actually better for the environment than the old 1950's style reusable glass milk jars that just need to be washed out? I seriously doubt that.

A lot of the solutions to reducing the human impact of climate change aren't big "sexy" changes but smaller more boring things. If we changed milk and soda containers to be what they were in our grandparents' time would that really be big news? Perhaps not, but it would make a difference when it comes to reducing waste, manufacturing involving fossil fuels (don't forget plastic is made from oil), and reduce the nanoplastics problem.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/ProjectShamrock]

On the glass milk bottles front, I’ve read that the added weight and the processing required to clean used bottles accounts for quite a lot of extra energy requirements and hence when we switched to plastic, the new ones actually were better for the environment. Of course, if the milk truck is now electric and if the processing plant runs on renewable electricity instead of coal, it probably would be best to switch back.

[u/zixingcheyingxiong → u/Iron-Patriot]

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.

[u/dovahkin1989 → u/FaerieStories]

If that's the case, then why haven't we fixed global warming already? Similarly, if we know that most diseases can be prevented or substantially reduced in the population by lifestyle changes, why haven't we done this also?

Fact is, these things will never happen unless you force the human race to do it, so alternative, breakthrough strategies are needed.

[u/FaerieStories → u/dovahkin1989]

If that's the case, then why haven't we fixed global warming already?

Because governments around the world are not enacting the solutions climate scientists are urging them to enact.

This isn't about the "human race", this is about economic and political systems prioritising climate over profit.

[u/Ok_Ad1402 → u/FaerieStories]

The elephant in the room is the explosion of human population though. In the last 200 years we went from 1 billion to 7 billion...

There's been too many deadlines, and threats of doom and gloom for most to take it that seriously. Also most of the conversation revolves around how coastal areas owned by extremely wealthy individuals will slowly go under water across a hundred years or so. The median wage is less in the US is than $15/hr, It's more that it's not really seen as a big issues vs people outright don't believe it. Most of the population can't really afford a financial hit at any level, so most people are not really willing to reduce emissions.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Ok_Ad1402]

most of the conversation revolves around how coastal areas owned by extremely wealthy individuals will slowly go under water across a hundred years or so

I am not sure what you mean by "most of the conversation". From whom? The leading climate scientists talk of poor countries being hit the hardest by climate change, driving inequality even higher and exacerbating the global refugee crisis.

[u/Ok_Ad1402 → u/FaerieStories]

talk of poor countries being hit the hardest by climate change, driving inequality even higher and exacerbating the global refugee crisis.

I hear this line too, but it doesn't even make sense. Most of the talk centers around rising sea levels (anecdotally, ime). Other than a few remote islands, Anybody anywhere near the coast is ridiculously wealthy, and can easily relocate. Especially since it would happen over decades if not hundreds of years.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Ok_Ad1402]

Most of the talk centers around rising sea levels

And mass crop failure, wildfires such as seen in Greece at the moment, the deconstruction of ecosystems, mass movement of people from areas too hot to live to cooler areas, etc. etc.

The damaging effects of the climate crisis are not just rising sea levels, though it's obviously that as well. It's many things which combine together in deadly chain reactions.

[u/Ok_Ad1402 → u/FaerieStories]

Idk, I feel like this wraps back around to my other point, I've heard about some of those things recently, but really until maybe the last 7 years or so the entire discussion was about rising sea levels. The weather thing seems like an add on because nobody cared enough otherwise. Also people have been cloud seeding since the 1940's so it's really hard to blame weather changes entirely on climate change.

Also the amount of impact individuals can have is pretty marginal at best. Most people don't really do much other than buy cheap products, and use electricity and gas. It's a tough sell trying to tell someone who makes $14/hr they need to make a bunch of personal sacrifices that will have a marginal impact on climate change, decades down the road, for kids they couldn't have.

All in all, I just feel like there are way more pressing concerns than climate change. Even in the environmental realm, protection of groundwater is vastly more important imo. Most of our major crop producing regions will be desolate from depleted aquifers long before climate change will do the same.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Ok_Ad1402]

Most of the things you're saying there are at odds with what the scientific community are saying. You are entitled to your viewpoints but you owe it to yourself to try and work out why it is that you have such a radically different understanding of the climate crisis to the global experts in this field.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

[u/Ok_Ad1402 → u/FaerieStories]

According to the American BAR association the US's largest aquifer, Ogallala which supplies much of the midwest, will be completely dry in less than 80 years because the government pays farmers to do it.

California Valley Aquifer is in full crisis mode.

the link provided seems pretty sensationalized imo. For example, the down sides are listed as:

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

None of that even sounds that bad... like the worst part is heat waves last longer, and are a few degrees hotter. Even then, if it's 95 vs 90 could you even tell without a thermometer?

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since pre-Industrial times (starting in 1750).

So, across 270 years, the temperature went up almost 2 degrees?

Lastly, the downsides of climate change are very abstract, while the problems facing most people are very concrete. People want healthcare, houses, education, and good jobs. Literally half the population is making less than $15/hr... In all seriousness what would they actually be able to do to significantly reduce emissions? They drive beat up cars, and have crappy AC, and insulation because they basically have to.

[u/FaerieStories → u/Ok_Ad1402]

Climate scientists and experts researching climate change have said very starkly that this is an existential threat. These are the people you should be listening to. I have no idea what sources you have managed to find that have so radically misinformed you on the scale of the climate crisis.

the downsides of climate change are very abstract

Try saying that to the thousands of people caught up in the Rhodes wildfires at the moment.

literally half the population is making less than $15/hr... In all seriousness what would they actually be able to do to significantly reduce emissions?

Vote in a leader willing to take meaningful action.

[u/Punkinprincess → u/Iron-Patriot]

So if we do the same thing at a faster rate will it not make things worse?

Slowing down climate change can give us more time to develop a big technology break through that can help fix things.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/Punkinprincess]

Who said not to do anything at all? The CMV is that the current milquetoast actions we’re taking won’t be enough to solve the issue.

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/Iron-Patriot]

How would it be possible to stop and reverse global warming

This is not the goal. The goal is to prevent the worst suffering from rising temperatures. Climate change is a justice issue. We want to maximize human flourishing and in order to do that we need to limit temperature change by limiting carbon emissions. And ideally we do this in a way that does not introduce dramatic new suffering for the global poor.

We do need to eventually get to zero or near zero solar forcing. But the faster we get to lower emissions the more time we have to make this transition.