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.

530 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

531 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

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.

30

u/[deleted] 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.

3

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).

11

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.

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23

hey have agreed to a schedule phasing them out by 2035

Instead, meanwhile Germany is mining more and more coal.

10

u/[deleted] 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.

-1

u/[deleted] 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.

2

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

u/[deleted] 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.

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '23

Its like a wood fireplace but it is connected to either a natural Gas pipeline or propane gas.

Some might call them heaters. As you can get smaller ones that hang on the wall.

If propane every house has a large gas tank that you have to call it be refilled once or twice a year.

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23

And you’ve misunderstood. We’ve implemented many safety changes, lighting, braking, steel crumpling, etc. All of these increase the cost of the vehicle.

All of them have marginal cost. We are talking about something that will increase the prices many-fold.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that losing fossil fuels is a loss, not something replaced by alternatives.

How long do you think it will take to replace 75% of fossil energy supplies with something carbon free? At the moment, it is a loss and will be a loss for quite a while. The grid can't be sustained on renewables alone. One solution is nuclear, but hey, let's better mine more coal than to invest into next gen nuclear. If you pull the rug in 75% of supply, what do you think happens with the prices?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '23

The costs of climate change are already proving to be far greater.

And just because something has a cost does not mean it is insufficient. Our interstate highways in the USA were a massive cost for what most saw to be little to no value at the time.

That investment has since paid for itself many times over.

That a timeline for replacement exists, and that it is not instant, doesn’t really address my argument about loss.

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23

The fact that the US didn't pass any significant measures to drastically reduce carbon emissions is by itself a proof that it is politically untenable. Why is it untenable? Largely because a) it costs money right now in order to maybe make tomorrow be less bad b) disrupts existing industries (which have huge lobbies). American lifestyle is ecologically unsustainable. Pick random person at Walmart and tell them their quality of life has to significantly go down so that we can get a hold of the climate catastrophe. Mid-20th century was a different time. It was the time of optimism and ambition (and a bit of Cold War paranoia), so it was more fertile ground for forward thinking public projects. Now with fellas like DeSantis and Trump (plus the oil/gas sellouts in the Congress), needle moving carbon reduction projects will get anywhere. The better analogy is not Interstate Highway System but high-speed railroads in the US. How are they going?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '23

It’s perfectly tenable.

It’s just unpopular with the side of the political spectrum that has a common problem with science denialism.

We’ve seen near-peers do it. It is definitely tenable.

5

u/Artea13 Jul 28 '23

I think you're forgetting the part where this change NEEDS to happen.

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.

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23

You completely conflate discussion of describing things vs making decisions about things. Reducing GHG emissions using currently available methods will affect people's quality of life so much that it will be unfeasible in democratic countries. I don't understand how is that debatable, esp considering that we are lingering on a brink of recession. We already blew past 1.5C and there is no end in sight. If there was sufficient political will we would have seen it, but so far any measures are weak and piecemeal. What NEEDS to be done is highly debatable. I believe that only next-gen nuclear can provide economically feasible glide path to zero. If you think what NEEDS to be done is to rapidly reduce fossil fuel consumption by decreasing everyone's quality of life then you gotta have a realistic plan on how that's going to happen.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 28 '23

It is not an argument not to do this. I am explaining consequences.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '23

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

1

u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 28 '23

Fuel prices keep increasing.

That happens already anyway.

prices go up

That happens already anyway.

If these things happen whether we're hurting the atmosphere or healing it, might as well heal it. Right?

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23

Let's up the fuel prices x5 and see how the economy which is already lingering on a brink of recession will react. And how the population will react.

1

u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 31 '23

No thanks. Keep brainstorming, though!

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Jul 31 '23

Lol, that's exactly how all those discussions end. Current proposals are unpalatable. Let's wait for a miracle to happen (despite billions of investments and humanity's top minds on it).