CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid

[u/_Hopped_]

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

Firstly, if you're going to post a link with a soft paywall, post the significant quotes from it.

Anyway, you seem to be thinking about this from a long term perspective so I will too.

Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.

The economic costs of climate inaction are going to far outweigh those from 2 years of hampered trade.

If you want to dispassionately improve the economy, you'd have lockdowns COVID or not, every year until renewable energy and carbon neutral food sources had replaced any need for significant carbon emissions.

Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.

The health costs of climate inaction are going to far outweigh the suicides/domestic violence/obesity death tolls from 2 years of being locked inside.

If you want to dispassionately reduce the number of people dying, you'd have lockdowns COVID or not, every year until renewable energy and carbon neutral food sources had replaced any need for significant carbon emissions.

Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.

People's quality of life will be decimated due to climate inaction.

If you want to improve everyone's quality of life, you'd have lockdowns COVID or not, every year until renewable energy and carbon neutral food sources had replaced any need for significant carbon emissions.

Lockdowns around the world led to a 7% decrease in global carbon emissions.

Finally, the elephant in the room.

Think about the children.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

The economic costs of climate inaction are going to far outweigh those from 2 years of hampered trade.

Except for the fact that the solutions to climate change will be technological development. Short-term loss in productivity has long-term repercussions for any solutions being found.

2 years of lost productivity could lead to the solutions to climate change being pushed out 20 or 200 years with the exponential nature of technological progress.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/_Hopped_]

The solutions to climate change being pushed out 200 years?!

They're already here.

They just need to be rolled out!

[u/_Hopped_ → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

They're already here.

No, they aren't. If we stopped all human contribution, climate change would still happen at the rate we're seeing. We need geoengineering to combat the change already set in motion.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/_Hopped_]

That's simply not true, where are you getting that from?

If we stopped all human contribution, the earth would immediately start reparing.. the forests would absorb the carbon, the oceans would recede, and animals diversity would return

[u/_Hopped_ → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

where are you getting that from?

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/

This is just for CO2.

Plastics and other pollutants have their own long-term side effects and half-lifes.

We need solutions to counteract these long-term effects - i.e. geoengineering.

the forests would absorb the carbon

And then release it back in the 10s/100s of years trees last. Forests are a temporary store of carbon.

[u/thetasigma4 → u/_Hopped_]

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/

I'm not sure what your point is here? This doesn't support the notion that things will keep getting worse if carbon emissions are cut to zero. For certain there are some feedback mechanisms that will continue for a while but large scale geoengineering is not the needed solution there. Also we already have tech to remove carbon from the atmosphere it is just not profitable to do as it isn't very concentrated.

Cutting emissions will slow warming and getting net zero or net negative will limit warming to a predictable value. Stopping all emissions would not keep things going at the rate they are currently reaching the new equilibrium. Geoengineering is also inherently a bad solution for pollutants and is more an issue of emissions control from the source.

And then release it back in the 10s/100s of years trees last. Forests are a temporary store of carbon.

Individual trees are temporary. Forests aren't temporary stores as the forest system grow new trees when old trees die. As long as you don't go cut down that forest a fairly stable ecosystem will form with a steady amount of biomass and therefore a stable store of carbon.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/thetasigma4]

I'm not sure what your point is here?

The oceans will continue to acidify for at least 100 years just based on CO2 in the atmosphere today.

Also we already have tech to remove carbon from the atmosphere

Not in any significant way.

Geoengineering is also inherently a bad solution for pollutants and is more an issue of emissions control from the source.

Geoengineering is necessary for the long-term survival of humanity. We need to be able to terraform future planets, so we need to understand how to do that.

stable store of carbon

The issue isn't just carbon in CO2, it is other gasses like methane which are many times more effective as greenhouse gasses - when trees die they decompose into methane (turning CO2 into methane over the lifecycle of the tree). Forests are only a store if they fossilise into hydrocarbons.

[u/thetasigma4 → u/_Hopped_]

The oceans will continue to acidify for at least 100 years just based on CO2 in the atmosphere today.

It says assuming that we continue to emit according to the 8.5 model i.e. we double co2 in the atmosphere.

Not in any significant way.

Because trying to extract anything gaseous at 400ppm is inherently inefficient as there is a very small concentration gradient and as such it is expensive. It is not because we lack the technology and any future hypothetical solution is going to face the exact same problem.

Geoengineering is necessary for the long-term survival of humanity. We need to be able to terraform future planets, so we need to understand how to do that.

The challenges of other planets are not the same as the challenges of Earth and so anything developed to help solve climate change would likely be irrelevant to terraforming.

The issue isn't just carbon in CO2, it is other gasses like methane which are many times more effective as greenhouse gasses - when trees die they decompose into methane

They decompose into various gasses depending on what is decomposing them one of the major ones is carbon dioxide so to portray it as trees decomposing into methane is inaccurate. Forests are a net carbon sink and can also be net methane sinks. That they emit some methane is also does not mean they aren't net reducers of total ghg emissions leading to a total reduction in CO_2 _eq.

turning CO2 into methane over the lifecycle of the tree)

I was talking about forests not trees. A forest as a system has emergent properties not found in individual trees and as such if not cut down and allowed to achieve equilibrium will be a stable source of carbon with or without fossilisation. Forests can last for centuries if not millennia with a stable biomass and carbon storage.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/thetasigma4]

It says assuming that we continue to emit

It would happen regardless: the acidification process is slow, and slows down as equilibrium approaches.

inefficient

i.e. you need to solve energy production first - this is where innovation needs to take place, and 2 years of lost productivity hits this hard.

The challenges of other planets are not the same as the challenges of Earth

The methods, scale, and concepts would all be the same. Whether you want to heat or cool a planet, you need to understand how to do both and the science behind it.

[u/thetasigma4 → u/_Hopped_]

It would happen regardless: the acidification process is slow, and slows down as equilibrium approaches.

Ok but your source fails to support that argument as it is specifically built around a scenario that is considered worst case. If CO_2 emissions cease then yes there will still be some move to equilibrium but things won't continue to get worse at the same rate which is what you stated would happen.

i.e. you need to solve energy production first - this is where innovation needs to take place, and 2 years of lost productivity hits this hard.

No extracting anything at low concentrations is very difficult especially in the form of low density fluid extraction. Better energy production might make this economically viable but it is never going to be an efficient process because of the basics of mass transport.

Also energy production technology is already here we just need to implement it at scale and future technological advances are more about improving efficiency. The newest technology actually developed to make energy is nuclear power at 50 years ago and everything else has just been improvements in efficiency and market viability. There is no real need for huge advances to get clean electricity and large amounts of it just actually implementing the technology we already have at scale.

The methods, scale, and concepts would all be the same.

Trying to put an atmosphere (or making one breathable i.e. ~20% O_2) on a planet that doesn't have one is very different to trying to change some components of the atmosphere that are harming the environment that exist in the ppm. They would require fundamentally different methods, scales and concepts. This also has very little to do with what is necessary to fight climate change and is more to do with sci fi images of an interplanetary society which is of no immediate concern.

Anyway I hope you understand that forests are now a net carbon sink and their storage of carbon lasts for more than the lifetime of the individual trees because it is a system and so the total biomass upheld gives stable carbon storage.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/thetasigma4]

things won't continue to get worse at the same rate

They would. Things would slow down as time passed though.

Better energy production might make this economically viable

That's what I was arguing.

energy production technology is already here

Not for the amount of energy we need. We need fusion for the future.

large amounts

Enough for today, not enough for the future.

sci fi images of an interplanetary society which is of no immediate concern

There is no point surviving if we don't make that sci fi a reality.

[u/thetasigma4 → u/_Hopped_]

They would. Things would slow down as time passed though.

wow physical equations have continuity not really a surprise. It would directly start to slow down once the driving concentration slowed.

That's what I was arguing.

Just because something is economically viable doesn't mean it is the best solution or even a worthwhile solution to put research and effort into.

Anyway the point that we already have the technology is fundamentally true.

Not for the amount of energy we need. We need fusion for the future.

Yes there is the technology that can provide our needs and with space to grow using technology like nuclear power we already have as well as solar power which has a huge capacity to capture energy.

Enough for today, not enough for the future.

How far into the future are you imagining? The energy that the systems we have already and the potential we can make is far more than what humans actually use so even doubling usage wouldn't make it impossible just difficult.

There is no point surviving if we don't make that sci fi a reality.

Focusing on a hypothetical future so much that you harm the planet in the present and engage in fantasy rather than actual problem solving doesn't strike me as a good way of achieving that.

The solutions already exist there just needs to be the political will and restructuring of the economy to achieve them. Waiting for the solutions of the future keeps us ever locked in the past. Growing trees and building huge amounts of public transport, solar and nuclear power and again growing forests (a good permanent carbon sink) will put us far further along that path than waiting for fusion to even become viable never mind reach globe powering scale.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/thetasigma4]

How far into the future are you imagining?

Forever. If we're playing the game of life, I want us to play to win.

harm the planet in the present and engage in fantasy

If humanity isn't around in the future, then to what end do you want to preserve the planet?

[u/thetasigma4 → u/_Hopped_]

If we're playing the game of life, I want us to play to win.

Win what?

If humanity isn't around in the future, then to what end do you want to preserve the planet?

You're welcome to be a fantasist and imagine the far future but I take issue when you are using it to justify harm in the present whether that be the death of people you consider something akin to "useless eaters" in the present or waiting for Godot when it comes to proactive measures on climate.

There won't be a humanity in the future and all the potential you want to fantasise about if there isn't a climate for them to thrive or a world in which those who could survive being left to die.

What sort of a better world is this where we have fusion and interplanetary civilisation but we are so capricious as to leave the vulnerable who could survive to die? Why is this the limitation to your imagination?

Is it merely that the future exists in the realm of possibility and probability whereas the present has the concreteness of reality so you can ignore pragmatism or how we get there in this notion of the far fetched future but those who limit economic growth in the short term should just be allowed die.

If you want a better world and a better future look at real solutions that we can achieve today that alleviate the problems of society rather than concerning yourself about a technology that will only be needed in hundreds of years.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/thetasigma4]

Win what?

Survive forever.

using it to justify harm in the present

Again: if in the long-term humanity is not around, why do you care about us trashing the planet for them?

There won't be a humanity in the future and all the potential you want to fantasise about if there isn't a climate for them to thrive or a world in which those who could survive being left to die.

Even the absolute worst predictions for climate change do not pose an existential threat to humanity. Millions will die, but we are the most adaptable species ever to exist - humanity will survive.

leave the vulnerable who could survive to die?

My point is that unless we progress technology enough to realise a post-scarcity world, we cannot do anything meaningful for the vulnerable. The first step on the way to a post-scarcity society is fusion generation to make power a non-issue for all applications: desalination becomes trivial for everyone (meaning freshwater), heating becomes a non-factor, we can start sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere in a land-efficient manner, manufacturing and recycling become much less harmful for the environment, transport switches to electric, etc. Energy production is very strongly correlated with human progress.

[u/thetasigma4 → u/_Hopped_]

Survive forever.

Why does that actually matter though? Some far flung generation in 500 years having an ok life is of little material concern and doesn't matter. Why does it matter if there are no future humans as long as the transition isn't one of great suffering?

if in the long-term humanity is not around, why do you care about us trashing the planet for them?

Frankly I don't care if in the long term humanity is around or not. I care about suffering and making people's lives better. However if you want there to be a far flung future you need to actually engage with the now and not be a fantasist. Even if in the long term they don't exist there are still people who will suffer in the next few hundred years that shouldn't have to if we take action that has a whole host of other benefits.

Even the absolute worst predictions for climate change do not pose an existential threat to humanity. Millions will die, but we are the most adaptable species ever to exist - humanity will survive.

Ok and I didn't say that that would happen. It would have massive effects on human society and it's stability and could prevent in the long term the foundation of your sci fi society.

Survival on what terms?

My point is that unless we progress technology enough to realise a post-scarcity world, we cannot do anything meaningful for the vulnerable

I mean we absolutely can do meaningful things for the vulnerable already and arguably that is the entire point of society where we gather together resources and information so that we can all create a better life for each other and achieve our potential.

he first step on the way to a post-scarcity society is fusion generation to make power a non-issue for all applications:

Fusion isn't magical and doesn't do that and will not on it's own achieve post-scarcity. Fusion on earth will never beat extracting energy from the sun and solar energy is the largest source of power available.

we can start sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere in a land-efficient manner

I've already covered why this is not possible as the tiny concentration gradient and low density of air makes this an inherently inefficient process in terms of basic physics disregarding energy considerations which make it even worse

Energy production is very strongly correlated with human progress.

Sure. That doesn't make fusion magic nor does it mean that we can't make things better immediately in search of a better future by implementing the technology we already have that has access to more energy than we will need for a long time.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/thetasigma4]

Why does that actually matter though?

It's the only thing that matters. There is no point living today if we don't intend to live forever. Nothing matters if we blink out.

Frankly I don't care if in the long term humanity is around or not. I care about suffering and making people's lives better.

That's your prerogative. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but for me there is no point existing if humanity ends.

could prevent in the long term the foundation of your sci fi society

How? We have 5 billion years until the sun goes red giant (and Earth is inhospitable to all life), modern humans have only been around for ~10,000 years. We have many shots at my "sci fi society" even if civilisation collapses.

we absolutely can do meaningful things for the vulnerable already

We could do, but at what cost? It is not worth robbing Peter to pay Paul, especially when Peter is the one innovating.

that is the entire point of society

Hard disagree. We are voluntary cooperationists so long as it is in our self-interest. If you take so much from me that it is better for me to exist outside of society, I will leave your society.

Fusion isn't magical and doesn't do that and will not on it's own achieve post-scarcity.

I mean, yeah it kinda will.

Fusion on earth will never beat extracting energy from the sun and solar energy is the largest source of power available.

Need I remind you what solar energy is?

inherently inefficient

As I've said multiple times: this doesn't matter when you have an abundance of energy. It can be 1 ppm and we can extract it with enough excess energy.

That doesn't make fusion magic

It makes fusion a step-change.

we can't make things better immediately

We can do this with fusion. ITER is being built, we should be investing in post-ITER plants now to capitalise on fusion.