Author Topic: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5  (Read 14713 times)

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« on: October 08, 2018, 08:20:18 AM »
Reactions range from "Yeah, it's actually worse" to "Not surprised it's this bad" but any enviro policy/science folks or enthusiasts have anything encouraging to say?

As a disclaimer, I'm an American in the South, so it's kind of a bleak situation in these parts as it is.

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2018, 09:19:46 AM »
My friend who is a climate scientist said that was a fairly optimistic report. His take is that it's not possible even if gov'ts take drastic steps. He's actually a pretty depressing dude to have beers with. It does really depress me, I love being outside and enjoying nature. It will be sad to see the impacts on nature as natural food systems collapse for animals like bears. Like as the oceans acidify and the salmon die off the entire west coast up to Alaska is just going to collapse.

Unless we create technology that can reverse climate change (like tech that removes carbon from the atmosphere which isn't very plausible at this point), climate change is going to happen and it's probably going to be disastrous for a lot of people. I'm not having kids, the world they will inherit is going to be terrible.

If I were you I'd consider getting out of the South and relocating to some of the northern states or Canada if you can swing it. In North America the refugee movements is going to be interesting, much of south america and the southern US won't be habitable due to droughts and water shortages driving people north to the Canadian border who have lots of fresh water. Conflict at the southern border as more people from mexico/south america try to move north to escape climate change is inevitable and I think it'll be likely that there will be some reorganization of states and merger with Canada. That may be more like a 2100 thing though.

On the plus side, I'm investing in Canadian wineries a lot. By 2050 the USA will have lost like 85% of it's wine producing regions and Canada will be the wine capital of North America. So I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Also, go traveling to see reefs and stuff now. By 2030 they'll all be mostly dead.

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic and it won't be that bad, but the likely scenario is a lot worse than "a few parts of NYC may flood". Total ecological collapse and a great extinction is going to make it very difficult to live on this planet.

Barbaebigode

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2018, 09:22:07 AM »
We're fucked. And there are far right candidates winning elections all over the globe and we know what those guys think about climate change.

But I'm not a "enviro policy/science folks or enthusiast", so take my pessimism with a grain of salt.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2018, 09:59:43 AM »
Thanks for responses! Seems like you guys are also in the dumps about this.

Fortunately, I spoke with a friend who worked on Montreal and her response was this:

There's lots to hope for. We're putting huge dents in climate change with Montreal. The IPCC has differences of opinions from other scientists. Not opposing, but there's much more subtlety in debates of scientists (and especially on the degrees) than the public understands.

As far as technology goes, I'm actually more optimistic there. There are plenty of ways to reduce carbon emissions *and* reduce the amount of carbon in the environment.

I think US politics is garbage and we're probably not going to be part of the solution on any Fed level but China is one of the largest emitters and also the fastest at creating huge scale change, so there is that.

I don't plan to stay in the South, no worries. I don't own a home here, I just live here turning the state purple for a time.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2018, 10:57:46 AM »
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.

It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.

I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2018, 11:41:39 AM »
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.

It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.

I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.

Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.

Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.

Barbaebigode

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2018, 11:55:05 AM »
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.

It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.

I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.

Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.

Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.

Yeah, by then their position will evolve to "it's too late now to do anything".

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2018, 12:11:00 PM »
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.

It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.

I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.

Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.

Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.

I always like to hear from optimists, but this is what the more optimistic among us in the biology fields used to believe.  Back in the late 1990s.

On the contrary, I suspect that as the consequences of climate change become more apparent and more severe, we will become even LESS able to act to correct it.  The best window, politically speaking, to act was back in the late 90s or early 2000s, when the scientific community already had a good handle on the scope of the crisis but it hadn't yet become politicized.  We have proceeded from a highly partisan political environment in the 1990s, when parties argued over the best policies to reduce carbon emissions, to an unimaginably partisan environment now, where policies are developed in a post-factual, anti-science environment where legitimate data have no weight, and each element of the crisis is/will be used for short-term political gain.

Humans are not, I think, wired correctly to manage anything but short-term crises. 

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2018, 12:15:05 PM »
@wenchsenior That's a cool perspective to hear, re: the attitude in 90s vs now.

I'm curious as to the tone on the topic, though. Certainly it's dire, so that's not what surprises me. But why are we only talking about federal US politics as the make or break on this? Speaking as someone from the south, there are surprising alliances (Read: tea party and radical liberals) on issues ranging from protecting waterways to solar/wind power on state level. California continues to be a prime example of what a state can do, despite federal meddling and push back. State and local seem like quite fine ways of addressing energy and land use. 

And, like I said, there's a whole globe of international players that don't have to deal with the same political environment re: climate change and plan to move forward on this with or without the US.

So... I donno. Seems like there are plenty of places to channel this energy and some cause for not complete despair?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 12:16:45 PM by Meowkins »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2018, 12:30:33 PM »
@wenchsenior That's a cool perspective to hear, re: the attitude in 90s vs now.

I'm curious as to the tone on the topic, though. Certainly it's dire, so that's not what surprises me. But why are we only talking about federal US politics as the make or break on this? Speaking as someone from the south, there are surprising alliances (Read: tea party and radical liberals) on issues ranging from protecting waterways to solar/wind power on state level. California continues to be a prime example of what a state can do, despite federal meddling and push back. State and local seem like quite fine ways of addressing energy and land use. 

And, like I said, there's a whole globe of international players that don't have to deal with the same political environment re: climate change and plan to move forward on this with or without the US.

So... I donno. Seems like there are plenty of places to channel this energy and some cause for not complete despair?

This is a problem where federal leverage is needed on things like energy policy through subsidy, policy and regulation. Doing it piecemeal is better than nothing, but it also sets up a perverse economic environment where there will be a simultaneous incentive for businesses to migrate to states with lower environmental bars. (See the credit card industry if you want an example of how this plays out).

I can mirror wenchsenior's experience in biology on the earth science side. I was in the lab with some of the key scientists doing work on climate change in the early 90s. The story is much more fleshed out now, but the key message has not really changed that much since then: less carbon and the sooner the better. The politicization and intentional disinformation campaigns about climate change have been very disheartening. The acceleration of those trends over the last two years (and ever successive year of inaction is more critical than the last) has been disturbing.

So yes, continue channeling your energy in the right direction, but the prognosis is pretty bleak beyond  the local level.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2018, 01:01:18 PM »
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.

It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.

I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.

Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.

Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.

Yeah, by then their position will evolve to "it's too late now to do anything".

Ehh they will still deny it's happening. Rubio still won't admit that humans are rapidly altering the climate, meanwhile Miami is continually seeking hundreds of millions to mitigate the floods ensuing from continually rising sea levels. I'm pretty sure he could be standing in knee deep water in downtown Miami surrounded by Octopus and catfish muttering the favorite denialist catchphrase "ehh the climate has always been changing."

I think we are past the tipping point. It will just take a while in human years, for the climate to catch up. It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't all be doing our own parts and lobbying those in power to make changes as well.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3725
  • Location: Avalon
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2018, 02:23:40 PM »
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum.  We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future.  We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future.  We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars.  And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons.   Even Pete does it.  Oh, and have kids.  More than two, in many cases.

And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet.  We are all the problem.  And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2018, 02:37:58 PM »
@former player  *scratches head* I dunno. I hear what you're saying on the pessimism in this thread, that is true. But honestly, most mustachians are making great environmental decisions.

Yeah, flying less is a big deal. But actually, I'm fairly sure reducing food waste and generally moving away from a meat-heavy diet are far more impactful in terms of reducing carbon emissions. Which many, many mustachians do anyway. Mustachian tendencies towards frugality also support initiatives like solar/wind power, which are pretty high up on the list of ways that we can reduce emissions. We buy fuel efficient cars. Many of use whatever land we do own wisely, and contribute to local food economies and ecosystems.

:) I think you're selling us short!!

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2018, 02:47:49 PM »
I think former player's point is that even though we do a lot of things that are good for the environment as a result of frugality and health, quite a few of us have major blind spots and make carbon-intensive choices even though we acknowledge the serious nature of climate change simply because we want certain experiences.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2018, 02:55:02 PM »
I understood that from his post, yeah. I was suggesting a reframe.

For example, there's a great article I will try to dig up on why a prominent climate scientist doesn't dissuade people from having children. Essentially, her argument was that it's absurd to tell people not to have children at all rather than do something about, say, giving money and attention to global efforts to educate women on family planning and access to contraceptives, which would have a much larger impact anyway.

Anyway, I think people should do whatever works for them. Frustration over people not acting 100% rationally in the interest of the climate over all aspects of their varied lives is too all or nothing for it to work for me, but that's just me!!

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2018, 02:55:31 PM »
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum.  We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future.  We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future.  We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars.  And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons.   Even Pete does it.  Oh, and have kids.  More than two, in many cases.

And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet.  We are all the problem.  And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.

Yes, I suspect it's a problem of how we perceive the balance of personal benefit/personal sacrifice.  Being frugal has some tangible benefits for us as individuals. Some are short term (improved health b/c we bike or walk rather than drive, less use of gas money, etc). Some are longer term but within our hypothetical lifetime (short term sacrifice for FI within our reasonable lifetimes, personal financial security from building up an emergency fund).

 But the actions to cut carbon emissions feel like pissing in the wind given the scale of the problem, and most of the worst effects that are tangible won't be felt in my lifetime (most likely).  And while some of the individual actions we can take don't cost us much in $ or time or energy or life satisfaction, many DO cost us, individually, and give us no tangible benefit (though they might give us moral satisfaction).

 E.g., although environmental issues are by FAR our biggest socio-political and professional concern, DH and I do not optimize every choice we make in life based on those criteria b/c to do so would impose negative costs in almost all cases.  Again, with little benefit to our lives.  It doesn't cost us much to recycle, or buy less stuff, or live in a small house, or drive one relatively efficient car.  And we made the decision to never have kids partly b/c of our values.  There are some changes we are trying to adopt such as eating less meat, which come with some sacrifice (we like meat and sometimes miss it when we don't eat it).  Then there are changes (like not flying) that would require real, painful life-satisfaction sacrifice that we haven't been willing to make. Or there are things like solar panels, that would require a $ outlay that we would be unlikely to ever recoup, so a real sacrifice there as well.  Those are the tough things for us, b/c doing them comes at real personal cost, for no tangible benefit to us.
 
It's a little bit like when a ton of people (including myself) insist on this forum that we want to pay more in taxes (to shore up the safety net, fund health care, cut carbon, or whatever).  And inevitably, others say "well, what's stopping you? don't take deductions, etc., but don't try to raise MY taxes!" And of course, that strikes most of us as ridiculous.  Why would we penalize ourselves so much personally when society doesn't even support the goal of the sacrifice?  So most of us that favor higher taxes will still act every year to optimize our own tax situation. It would be irrational not to.

That's the fundamental problem with the scale of the challenge and why I suspect we (as a society) will never address it. Tragedy of the commons etc.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2018, 02:57:41 PM »
To be clear, I believe we're beyond fucked. I've been pretty sure of this for a few years now. Reading books like Overshoot by William Catton Jr. make it pretty clear.

But I'm fighting anyhow. How?

1. went vegan / whole food plant based a year ago
2. I organize a local activist group to nudge others to stop eating meat and dairy because the vertebrate biomass of livestock is not only a major source of GHGs, it's wiping out whole ecosystems and driving wild species into extinction at alarming rates. The phrase 'you can't be an environmentalist and eat animals or their by-products' is truer now more than ever.  Just last night, at one of the events I organize, 15 people wholeheartedly agreed to sign up at vegan22.com to get 22 days of support transitioning to a vegan/WFPB diet.
3. I started a crowdfund to end all fed subsidies to animal agriculture. You can donate here:
https://www.lobbyists4good.org/animal-ag-subsidies
4. I joined the Vegan Justice League which you can join too for at least a $50 a year membership for more long term lobbying efforts to end market-distorting subsidies to animal ag in the US.
5. I'm making videos to help us members in the VJL understand the details of the farm subsidies and come up with proposals to help farmers transition to growing crops for human consumption.
6. I voted in the mid-terms elections already.
7. I contact my reps regularly telling them how I want them to vote on all things that affect the environment.

If we all did 5-10 steps like this, well, humanity would still be fucked. We've emitted too much of that ancient sunlight I doubt we'll ever get it back in the ground where it belongs. But maybe we could stop stealing from our kids future, and give them back a few extra years of hospitable planet.  No matter what,  I'm going to fight anyway. The fuck else am I going to do? Whine? Stay angry at my father who sends me bullshit articles from the Manhattan Institute that tell us we can 'safely' ignore climate scientists?

Anyway, that's what I'm doing to widen my circle of influence and try to fix this shit. What are you doing?

If you don't know where to start, may I suggest eating lentils rather than beef, oat milk rather than cow's milk. And make this instead of eating cheese. Join us in the Go Whole Food Plant-Based (WFPD) Diet in 2018 thread, over in the throw-down-the-gauntlet sub.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 03:20:20 PM by Malaysia41 »

Yankuba

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Location: Long Island, NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2018, 03:04:27 PM »
PTF

Climate change is one reason I am skeptical of 100% equities and FIRE. Canít have perpetual 8% growth on a finite planet that is sick and overcrowded. If some of the dire climate projections come to pass the financial crisis will look like a cake walk.

+1 to my buddy Malaysia. If everyone limited their consumption of dead animals and dairy it would go a long way. Lots of great meatless substitutes out there
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 03:07:44 PM by Yankuba »

Yankuba

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Location: Long Island, NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2018, 03:21:00 PM »
A couple of people mentioned wind power but it turns out it isnít a magic bullet! This article just came out:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-10-04/wind-power-isn-t-as-clean-as-we-thought-it-was
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 03:33:42 PM by Yankuba »

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2018, 03:30:20 PM »
Quote
Recently Harwatt and a team of scientists from Oregon State University, Bard College, and Loma Linda University calculated just what would happen if every American made one dietary change: substituting beans for beef. They found that if everyone were willing and able to do thatóhypotheticallyóthe U.S. could still come close to meeting its 2020 greenhouse-gas emission goals, pledged by President Barack Obama in 2009.

-- https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-beef/535536/

Seriously. I wasn't joking.

wordnerd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2018, 03:30:39 PM »
This report, like all things climate change, makes me feel fatalistic and powerless. But, we have to keep trying. I'm actually in the midst of a lot of environmentally friendly life changes. We sold one car. Our remaining (electric) vehicle will be charged on mostly hydro power. We are downsizing to less than half our previous space. We will not have a yard. We will fly less (no cross country trips to see family). We have significantly slimmed our possessions by donating. I will vote yes on the nation's first carbon tax next month. I am also considering becoming vegetarian. And I know, even with these changes, I am still.incredibly bad for the earth.

State level policy gives me some hope, as do potential technological advances. But, I have trouble finding much optimism.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2018, 03:32:07 PM »
A couple of people mentioned wind power but it turns out it isnít so great for the environment! This article just came out:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-10-04/wind-power-isn-t-as-clean-as-we-thought-it-was

A 0.24 C gain is a lot better than what we're looking at with coal plants.

Really, the problem is too many people. Even if we blanketed our roofs with solar panels, there won't be enough resources for panels for all 7.5B of us to live the life of an American or Aussie. We either need some serious birth control or a complete remake of our cities and society.

Barbaebigode

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2018, 04:24:20 PM »
A couple of people mentioned wind power but it turns out it isnít so great for the environment! This article just came out:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-10-04/wind-power-isn-t-as-clean-as-we-thought-it-was

A 0.24 C gain is a lot better than what we're looking at with coal plants.

Really, the problem is too many people. Even if we blanketed our roofs with solar panels, there won't be enough resources for panels for all 7.5B of us to live the life of an American or Aussie. We either need some serious birth control or a complete remake of our cities and society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

China had about 1 billion inhabitants when the one child policy began, now it has almost 1,4 billion. Mostly due to an increasing life expectancy. Birth control schemes take decades to lower population numbers, and we are heading to a fertility rate below replacement rate anyway.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2018, 04:48:27 PM »
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum.  We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future.  We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future.  We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars.  And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons.   Even Pete does it.  Oh, and have kids.  More than two, in many cases.

And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet.  We are all the problem.  And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.

Why does it depress you? I mean I understand but I have been diving deeper and even getting my kids thinking about their circle of control. Hell I used the phrase last night when my brother was pissed off because we lost 1 game in volleyball. I wasn't real pleased when my spouse decided to drive the entire 1/4 mile up to our daughter's school the other day. 

Also I don't think it's going to take until 2050. The impacts of human induced climate change are already being felt and have been for a while. It's just often times hard to see because we view it from a human time scale. I told both my kids the other day that I feel bad for the kind of planet they are inheriting and their offspring after them. And I have totally reversed course on wanting to live on the coast. Fuck that!

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2018, 05:14:21 PM »
@Malaysia41 I haven't read Overshoot! I looked at a review just now as well as the synopsis. It doesn't seem particularly focused on climate change, but if I'm understanding correctly, the idea is that human beings are inevitably going to ruin themselves with exhausting our resources in general. I'd love to hear more about why you recommend this as reading material, since you obviously are making very thoughtful lifestyle changes and advocating in many ways!

@wordnerd It is pretty dismal feeling! A 10 year timeline feels so so so short, even if that's "optimistic" by some standards. I guess we can't do anything but keep doing our best. Can't wait to get baby outside in the real world so I can feel more like a normal person and can get back to trying to be more involved locally.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2018, 05:34:07 PM »
This concerns me directly because a very large portion of my town is in a flood plain and less than 15 ft above sea level.  Things I (we) are doing: no children, fuel efficient cars, energy efficient appliances and light bulbs, low flow everything, extra insulation, and solar panels.  I donít eat a whole lot of meat but am a dairy fiend, though, and my extended family is spread all over the place so I fly at least a few times a year.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2018, 06:16:24 PM »
The problem isn't the climate change.  The elephant in the room is the size of the human population.  The earth can't sustain 7.5 billion people.

But, nobody wants to discuss it.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2018, 06:30:16 PM »
The problem isn't the climate change.  The elephant in the room is the size of the human population.  The earth can't sustain 7.5 billion people.

But, nobody wants to discuss it.
Plenty of us want to discuss it, but those who do discuss it are also the ones who are far less likely to have more than 2 kids. There are significant social/religious institutions that encourage procreation and are, as a population, simultaneously more skeptical of the veracity of human influence on climate change. There are literally members of Congress who believe (or at least say they do) that God will solve climate change- if it is even a thing. If science is not a fundamental part of the decision process, it ends up being a dead end. Addressing overpopulation is a parallel example of people generally not taking ownership of the big picture in their own decisions. 


Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
  • Location: Southern California
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2018, 06:50:20 PM »
The problem isn't the climate change.  The elephant in the room is the size of the human population.  The earth can't sustain 7.5 billion people.

But, nobody wants to discuss it.

Quite a few people discuss it, it's just there aren't any easy solutions. Birth control is not going to stop anything. The population growth is coming from poor countries, developing countries. The pollution is disproportionately coming from the already developed countries that have slowed down population growth. Slowing down population growth in Africa or India isn't going to do all that much. The majority of people in this world are really poor and contribute a tiny amount of pollution individually as compared to wealthy Americans or Europeans. Developed countries taking the lead in reducing emissions is the necessary step because when the developing countries step up, their population growth will slow down as America, Europe, and Japan has. Having a technology to grow into such as solar electricity, electric cars, and perhaps greener farming methods that are tried and true will do more than birth control. Steering countries away from environmentally damaging technologies is the sound step.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2018, 06:51:09 PM »
Look, the elephant in the room is this: the warming is baked in at this point. Eat vegan all you want, stop flying... it doesn't matter. There's already enough carbon in the atmosphere that big changes will happen. And your vegan not-flying lifestyle *still* isn't sustainable - *nobody* who lives in a modern society is living a sustainable lifestyle unless you're going full freegan/living in a tree.

So we're going to have to geoengineer our way out. Period. It's time to stop talking about driving less (I ride a bike everywhere, but for the climate it's probably a waste of time) and talk about making sure we can grow crops (anti-GMO people, you are welcome to starve) and maybe putting some extra sulfates in the upper atmosphere if things get really bad. And being realistic - we need a humming economy to develop better renewable energy tech. At this point we probably need to keep burning fossil fuels to get there.

We are going to have to live with elevated CO2 levels and their consequences for a while. That means we should be planning for that, not endlessly recycling the "let's tax carbon and all drive a Prius!" and "but the scientists aren't SURE, let's do more research also Al Gore argle bargle" BS spouted by both sides of the debate.

It's almost as if both liberals and conservatives *want* civilization to collapse, both through willful ignorance.

-W
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 06:58:06 PM by waltworks »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2018, 06:57:55 PM »
The problem isn't the climate change.  The elephant in the room is the size of the human population.  The earth can't sustain 7.5 billion people.

But, nobody wants to discuss it.
Plenty of us want to discuss it, but those who do discuss it are also the ones who are far less likely to have more than 2 kids. There are significant social/religious institutions that encourage procreation and are, as a population, simultaneously more skeptical of the veracity of human influence on climate change. There are literally members of Congress who believe (or at least say they do) that God will solve climate change- if it is even a thing. If science is not a fundamental part of the decision process, it ends up being a dead end. Addressing overpopulation is a parallel example of people generally not taking ownership of the big picture in their own decisions.

Absolutely many of us want to discuss it.  I remember back in the early 90s...I was taking a class with a professor of range ecology (historically, a notoriously conservative discipline). The first class after he got tenure, he spent half the class lecturing on the near impossibility of sustaining human populations at their projected densities without destroying the earth's ecosystems, and eventually the stability of our global societies.  He specifically said he had to wait for tenure to give the lecture b/c his field was so populated by GOP voting, Limbaugh loving, God made the earth for us to exploit, the gov't should subsidize my personal business while I graze my cattle on public land, screw the health of the range-land ecosystem as long as I can produce more cattle types.  It was an eye opener  for 19 year old me, who thought that factual data must at least be the predominant influence in the sciences.   
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 06:59:43 PM by wenchsenior »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2998
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2018, 07:07:33 PM »
Global fertility is down to 2.5 births per woman and continuing to decline. In the US we crossed below replacement rate during the great recession (currently at 1.76 births per woman and still falling).

Now there is still a lot of population growth "baked in" to our future as the large young cohorts in places like Africa and the Middle East come of age, have approximately two children each, and then likely live to an old age closer to the life expectancy we see in the USA/Europe/Japan. But given that once you get below about 1.5 births per woman (what you see places like Japan and Russia) you start to have major societal problems with how smaller young generations can care and support larger old generations, in many parts of the world it would seem that we're turning down the make-more-humans rheostat close to as low as it can sustainably go. I suspect this may be why there is less discussion of birth/population control these days than there was in the 1960s/1970s.

Similarly, at this point there is enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere that -- absent a breakthrough in carbon capture or geoengineering -- there is enough climate change baked in to our future to make for frightening century or two as a civilization/species. So while I don't think there is all that much more we can do to reduce population growth (there is certainly some), I can certainly see why some folks would chose not to bring children into a world that may be quite unpleasant to live in going forward.

middo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2018, 07:54:45 PM »
Australia is doing nothing until a change of government. Our new environment minister just said about coal "To say it has to be phased out by 2050 is drawing a long bow."

 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/environment-minister-says-calls-to-end-coal-drawing-long-bow/10354604?pfmredir=sm

This is why we need ex- mining compamy lawyers in charge of the environment.

Nope, no hope coming from down under.  We are just gonna burn


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2018, 08:32:51 PM »
Look, the elephant in the room is this: the warming is baked in at this point. Eat vegan all you want, stop flying... it doesn't matter. There's already enough carbon in the atmosphere that big changes will happen. And your vegan not-flying lifestyle *still* isn't sustainable - *nobody* who lives in a modern society is living a sustainable lifestyle unless you're going full freegan/living in a tree.

So we're going to have to geoengineer our way out. Period. It's time to stop talking about driving less (I ride a bike everywhere, but for the climate it's probably a waste of time) and talk about making sure we can grow crops (anti-GMO people, you are welcome to starve) and maybe putting some extra sulfates in the upper atmosphere if things get really bad. And being realistic - we need a humming economy to develop better renewable energy tech. At this point we probably need to keep burning fossil fuels to get there.

We are going to have to live with elevated CO2 levels and their consequences for a while. That means we should be planning for that, not endlessly recycling the "let's tax carbon and all drive a Prius!" and "but the scientists aren't SURE, let's do more research also Al Gore argle bargle" BS spouted by both sides of the debate.

It's almost as if both liberals and conservatives *want* civilization to collapse, both through willful ignorance.

-W

So you're banking on the gee-whiz gadget that will save us? Well, we are funding science like never before (Oh, we're not. Shit.)

I'd actually like to see the #s on what kind of lifestyle would make for a sustainable lifestyle. I've seen 2.5 tons/year, and that's not that difficult to achieve for a non-buying shit, non-flying, biking, vegan.

You're right that we'll see consequences at this point but there's no funding anymore for long-term planning and no backbone to make tough decisions.

The current one-party Congress couldn't even pass an infrastructure bill. Imagine leaders telling Phoenix that a desert city is unsustainable and it's a waste to spend billions upon billions to get it more water as Lake Mead and the Colorado dry up. Yeah, that'd go over really well.

In other words, while we'd all like to see leadership lead, it's not gonna happen. Since I doubt any of us here owns a high-flying jet and some sulfates, we're stuck with doing what we can, which is solar panels and riding bikes and not eating meat and voting. And moving if you live on the coast.


waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2018, 08:40:30 PM »
Oh, a mere multi-millionaire could do the sulfates on their own. I'd be surprised if an Elon Musk type doesn't already have everything in place. And obviously even a tiny nation-state could do it. Now, there might be terrible consequences we haven't anticipated... c'est la vie.

I'm not saying we *should* rely on gee-whiz tech to save us... I'm saying *we already made that decision*. It's our only remaining option. The ship sailed on emissions reductions at least 20 years ago and maybe more like 50.

Now we need to A) survive the changes, and B) make a plan to recover. Pushing people to go vegan and ride their bikes (I'm already onboard) is great. It's also pointless. Time to admit that.

-W

mspym

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • Location: Downunder
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2018, 08:52:51 PM »
Australia is doing nothing until a change of government. Our new environment minister just said about coal "To say it has to be phased out by 2050 is drawing a long bow."

 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/environment-minister-says-calls-to-end-coal-drawing-long-bow/10354604?pfmredir=sm

This is why we need ex- mining compamy lawyers in charge of the environment.

Nope, no hope coming from down under.  We are just gonna burn

And then it gets reported in the major newspapers as "Backing the miners" and not, oh, shitting all over the rest of Australia as we head into ever increasingly hot summers. And winters. And please buy a bale for the poor drought stricken farmers so they can keep on pouring methane into the atmosphere.

cool cool. This is fine.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2018, 09:08:15 PM »
Now we need to A) survive the changes, and B) make a plan to recover. Pushing people to go vegan and ride their bikes (I'm already onboard) is great. It's also pointless. Time to admit that.

You, friend, are the true optimist in this thread.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2018, 09:17:01 PM »
You, friend, are the true optimist in this thread.

To be clear, I expect loads of deaths. My hope is that "civilization" and human knowledge can survive 1/2 of humans dying and we can be smarter going forward. We'll see.

-W

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2018, 11:00:20 PM »
Oh, a mere multi-millionaire could do the sulfates on their own. I'd be surprised if an Elon Musk type doesn't already have everything in place. And obviously even a tiny nation-state could do it. Now, there might be terrible consequences we haven't anticipated... c'est la vie.

I'm not saying we *should* rely on gee-whiz tech to save us... I'm saying *we already made that decision*. It's our only remaining option. The ship sailed on emissions reductions at least 20 years ago and maybe more like 50.

Now we need to A) survive the changes, and B) make a plan to recover. Pushing people to go vegan and ride their bikes (I'm already onboard) is great. It's also pointless. Time to admit that.

-W

I studied climate change in the 90s and agree that the time for behavioural change was then, so yes, the ship may well have sailed. However, I still feel a moral obligation to reduce my impact, and to model that to my friends. I can't really do nothing?


For those seeking some optimism
, this is a good 6 minute interview with a professor of sustainability who worked on the report:

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/australias-coal-devotion-wil-maroon-us-fiscally-peter-newman/10352284

He is very optimistic about electricity production but less happy about industry and international freight/ travel. Ie he is optimistic where individuals can really make a difference and have made a difference but pessimistic where there isn't really one authority 'in charge' e.g. international freight. That is something to ponder further. I guess at an individual level we actually can help because we can limit our consumption of goods and buy locally. Don't knock down a house and rebuild if it's useable. Don't fly. That sort of thing.

Prof Newman does also raise the issue of land clearing as very problematic. So in this case, it is worthwhile moving away from food sources that are encouraging land clearing. So beef would be a problem but I don't think it is black and white - an article about the problems of soy bean agriculture drifted across my vision today but I haven't read it yet!

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5817
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2018, 03:55:43 AM »
You, friend, are the true optimist in this thread.

To be clear, I expect loads of deaths. My hope is that "civilization" and human knowledge can survive 1/2 of humans dying and we can be smarter going forward. We'll see.

-W

There has always been light in the darkness. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein.... humanity always has a way of (eventually) enlightening itself.

Those who bury their heads in the ground can only deny facts for so long until the dam bursts and sands of time sweep them away. This too shall pass.

Always be optimistic about the future, even if it takes a catastrophe for the survivors to wake up to it.

Ducknald Don

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Oxford, UK
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2018, 04:25:19 AM »
Also, go traveling to see reefs and stuff now.

An interesting suggestion in a thread about climate change.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2018, 05:11:23 AM »
Thanks @Fresh Bread for the link! A friend in enviro policy also sent me information about the Kigali amendment: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/kigali-amendment-little-noticed-treaty-could-help-delay-climate-catastrophe
It covers HFCs and how their reduction may reduce warming by 0.5C.

This thread is otherwise kind of amusing and a micro example of why climate change is so hard to address, right? "The cause is really A! The cause is really B. Who cares about the cause, time's up anyway!" I'm pretty sure that most of the scientists working on this probably wouldn't be so bold enough to mention to their peers with such authority the "simple" reason climate change is occurring and that there is no reason to even bother, especially because there seem to be *so many* scientists and policymakers still working very hard on the issue with reason to hope.

Re: overpopulation, I'm curious how many people depressed about overpopulation actually give in time and money to access to contraception in the US and abroad rather than sighing about their peers having children in countries with flagging birth rates, anyway. I mean, there are still countries on earth where having kids is just what happens, not what you choose to happen. How many "discussions" on overpopulation actually evolve into passionate discussions on education and protection of women as a priority?

It's also surprising that people who believe that overpopulation is THE CAUSE and the road to inevitable collapse are even bothering to worry about that given that many people are already dying due to the causes of climate change. Self correcting problem, then, isn't it? Just like in other ecosystems.

The hyperfocus on what the US fed does is confusing. I know some people will say, "Well, it's our sphere of influence, many of us are Americans." Okay, cool, but actually, if the most recently federal election shows anything, most Americans opinions don't really matter on the national scale (to those not American: I'm referring to the fact that most Americans did not vote for the current administration, whatever your opinions on it). So why *not* refocus on state and local which is *actually* our sphere of influence? I hear Bacchi's point on Phoenix, but like I said, have seen strange bedfellows in Southern states commit to lasting change, so I wonder if that's based more on pessimism that actual research into the issue.

The nitpicking on different solutions is also confusing to me. Okay, so wind energy has some downsides. Well, what kind precisely? There are *many types* of wind energy. Why even suggest that a better solution has less merit because it's not the perfect solution in a problem that is so much going to be a combination of lots of small efforts across the entire globe?

I'm just saying, it kept me up a little last night chewing on why this bothered me. We're a community that thrives on microoptimizations to make huge impact and instead of talking about the actual math of climate change and how we can chip away, too, at this problem, we're literally talking about how it's too late to do anything... just like, say, every other Whiny Pants (TM) that tells us that the system is too rigged, too corrupted, to make any sort of lasting financial freedom or security for oneself.

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2018, 06:46:16 AM »
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum.  We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future.  We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future.  We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars.  And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons.   Even Pete does it.  Oh, and have kids.  More than two, in many cases.

And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet.  We are all the problem.  And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.

The challenge isn't living with less, which the experience of everyone who has done it says improves their lives. It's overcoming the limiting beliefs.

Years ago I learned that flying contributes to global warming more than I thought (rule of thumb: NY-LA round trip coach is roughly a year of driving), I thought, "Flying clashes with my identity. I don't see how I can keep doing it." I considered giving myself a challenge: could I go for a year without flying?

Like anyone, I thought about family, income, and other things that depended on flying. I couldn't see how to avoid flying. Then I also looked at how many things in my life I only learned through experience that I could never have planned.

So I took on the challenge. I told myself I'd figure out how to make things work as they came up. I also thought on day 366, I'd jump on the first plane I could to catch up on what I was missing.

The opposite happened. It became one of my best life decisions. I learned more about myself and the beliefs society leads us into than I expected, coming out better in every way I measure. At the end of year 1, I easily chose to go for another year. I'm in year 3 now and expect to keep going indefinitely.

Don't get me wrong, I love traveling. I just love what I get from getting all the value from travel without polluting as much more. I've learned to create adventure, discover cuisine and culture, and the other benefits I got from travel without flying.

The same happened before, when I chose to avoid packaged food. I thought I'd lose variety, convenience, savings, etc. On the contrary, my diet is more delicious, costs less, is more convenient, connects with community more, and is better by every measure I care about. Maybe the biggest is that I eat to full, even stuffed, every meal, yet still have six pack abs.

With minimal effort, my last load of garbage took me 16 months to accumulate for my whole apartment. Less garbage creates more freedom, especially mental freedom.

My results are so contrary to mainstream social beliefs that they compelled me to create a podcast, Leadership and the Environment, to help get people from the treadmill.

I read an analysis of Germans that they could reduce their energy use by 75% without changing their lifestyles. That means Americans can probably reduce ours by 85% or more, likely improving our lives since all that waste weighs us down.

Here are pictures from last week, when a company invited me to prepare my famous no-packaging vegetable stew for 50 people (they got alcohol sponsorship and brought bread, butter, and avocados without telling me, which I would have tried to prevent had I known). You can see it's mostly fresh farmers market vegetables and fruit, served with lentils and beans. Total food costs were under $3 per person, with about 40% left over for future meals.

That's sustainable life as I've found it: full of friends, delicious food, spending less, convenient, community, and so on. Seeing the rest of the country on antidepressants, 75% overweight and obese, shooting up schools, and so on tells me this way is better.

The challenge isn't living with less, which the experience of everyone who has done it says improves their lives. It's overcoming the limiting beliefs keeping us fat, dumb, and unhappy.

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2018, 07:06:28 AM »
Look, the elephant in the room is this: the warming is baked in at this point. Eat vegan all you want, stop flying... it doesn't matter. There's already enough carbon in the atmosphere that big changes will happen. And your vegan not-flying lifestyle *still* isn't sustainable - *nobody* who lives in a modern society is living a sustainable lifestyle unless you're going full freegan/living in a tree.

So we're going to have to geoengineer our way out. Period. It's time to stop talking about driving less (I ride a bike everywhere, but for the climate it's probably a waste of time) and talk about making sure we can grow crops (anti-GMO people, you are welcome to starve) and maybe putting some extra sulfates in the upper atmosphere if things get really bad. And being realistic - we need a humming economy to develop better renewable energy tech. At this point we probably need to keep burning fossil fuels to get there.

We are going to have to live with elevated CO2 levels and their consequences for a while. That means we should be planning for that, not endlessly recycling the "let's tax carbon and all drive a Prius!" and "but the scientists aren't SURE, let's do more research also Al Gore argle bargle" BS spouted by both sides of the debate.

It's almost as if both liberals and conservatives *want* civilization to collapse, both through willful ignorance.

-W

I agree with you that acting is more productive than talking without acting. My post above this one shows that I've found that reducing my impact improves my life, leading me to look for bigger changes, since I expect them to improve my life more.

Regarding, "Eat vegan all you want, stop flying... it doesn't matter." I disagree that it doesn't matter. The population dropping to 6 billion is different than the population dropping to 1 billion. The population dropping over the course of a few decades is different than the population dropping over the course of a few years. More relevant to my life: living less wastefully improves my life. I expect to do it more.

Regarding, "And your vegan not-flying lifestyle *still* isn't sustainable - *nobody* who lives in a modern society is living a sustainable lifestyle unless you're going full freegan/living in a tree," that's why we iterate. The Wright Brothers couldn't have foreseen 787s, but that didn't stop them. There are a lot more sustainability gains to be had. Americans have barely started the low hanging fruit.

Regarding, "So we're going to have to geoengineer our way out," technology rarely solves social problems. Behavioral change is the domain of leadership, which is based in social and emotional skills. I see the biggest challenges to living more sustainably as the beliefs "If I act but no one else does then what I do doesn't matter" and "Little changes are too small to matter and big changes are too hard to do," which keep people from acting.

I find those beliefs change after people act and find their lives improve from the action, as evidenced by the second conversation with nearly every guest on my podcast, who say "That change was easier than I expected, I wish I'd done it earlier" or "That change was hard, but the kind of hard I value. Thank you for prompting me."

I'm not sure why you frame preparing for a warmed globe as exclusive to polluting less and regulating behavior that imposes costs on others (while reducing income taxes, presumably). It seems a false and unnecessary dichotomy.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2018, 07:07:31 AM »
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/

Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.  The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population. 

My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem:  We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room  for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population).  We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.

Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American. 

Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help.   Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances.  A great deal of the crashes are due to disease.   I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself.  In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment.   The horse is out of the barn.

Hirondelle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2018, 07:10:18 AM »
I'm somewhat surprised and disheartened by the pessimism in this thread. Yes, we're currently on track to make the earth 3-4 degrees Celcius warmer than it used to be (depending on how happily we continue/increase emissions), we already reached the first degree and the current IPCC Climate Report talks about aiming to limit it to 1.5-2 degrees. Sure, maybe we'll be fucked at that point anyways as the tipping point for melting poles might've been reached, but no one knows.

I'd say we're in a situation of clown house, two car loans and some big ass consumer debt while having barely the income to pay the monthly minimums. Does that mean we have to give up now and keep going the way we do, happily taking an extra flight to see the reefs before they're bleached and dead and the Maldives before they're flooded?

No, we should move our asses to get as close to that 1.5 degree maximum as fast as we can. In the West we're the biggest 'spenders' environmental-wise, so we can make the biggest cuts compared to the people that may reproduce themselves more but barely affect the environment in Africa (note: most countries have already greatly reduced their fertility rate once child deaths reduced, check out Hans Rosling's TED talks on this topic).

It's not that impossible to stay within the "1 earth-footprint" limit. Actually, if I hadn't made an international flight this year I would've scored a perfect 1 earth according to the calculator I last used (through "the hidden impact"). Now I'm at 2.2, which is pretty horrible but still a ton better than average for my country (3.6 for The Netherlands, 1.5 globally, USA average is probably higher).

So what can we (I) do?
- I'm not as committed as M41, but my diet got pretty close to vegan. I occasionally consume some animal products when offered to be, but stopped buying any myself. Also sign up as a vegetarian for any event I go to as that will reduce the amount of animal products they buy for buffets and such.
- If vegan is too much of a commitment, consider giving up red meats (they're not good for you either) and cheese. These are the worst animal products environment-wise.
- Buy less stuff, especially electronics and try to buy mostly second hand.
- Reduce/eliminate flying and driving.
- Not only kids ask a lot from the environment, so do pets! All the cats & dogs in the USA eat as much meat as the whole nation of France. Yes, pets are basically consumer goods too and bred for us.
- Reduce and/or eliminate 'useless' foods; e.g. sodas or candies. They're bad for health, wallet and the environment as they have to be produced in factories, transported and land is used for the sugar production.
- As mustachians we have a lot of money and money = power. I've made 3 changes in this field that are applicable to my country, but not sure what alternatives are available for other countries.
1. I've moved my checking and savings bank accounts to the most sustainable bank in my country that does not invest money in fossil fuels or weapons. The impact increases with the amount of money in the account and it's a 100% painless change. Interest rate on my savings is the same as with major banks. 2. Then that there's an investment option where I invest in solar panels that others rent (e.g. people who don't have the money to pay for solar panels at once). Returns are about 6% plus it enables people that otherwise wouldn't be able to join the energy transition (yet). Probably performs less than the stock market, but it will most likely outperform bonds and is a relatively low-risk investment. For Dutch people: duurzaaminvesteren.nl is the website.
3. Consider more sustainable index funds instead of the standard ones. This is a tough one as it's easy to consider everything not sustainable enough, but I've found one that I liked (TSWE) that is still pretty broad and has only excluded a few categories. Not perfect, but hopefully still better than the default.

Then of course there's all the obvious things re not wasting stuff and water, voting as green as you can tolerate and donating to effective charities that help the environment.

If we're not going to care 'because we're gonna be fucked anyways', why would our governments? Why would the people in Africa that should stop reproducing according to us as 5 less kids for them means 1 more person living a western lifestyle for us? If we're hoping for revolutionary technology it's like a poor person waiting for an inheritance from that one aunt that turns out to live till 105.

Barbaebigode

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2018, 07:33:19 AM »
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/

Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.  The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population. 

My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem:  We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room  for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population).  We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.

Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American. 

Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help.   Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances.  A great deal of the crashes are due to disease.   I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself.  In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment.   The horse is out of the barn.

Ok, how do we get to 1b people in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change?

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2018, 07:57:28 AM »
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/

Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.  The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population. 

My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem:  We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room  for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population).  We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.

Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American. 

Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help.   Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances.  A great deal of the crashes are due to disease.   I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself.  In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment.   The horse is out of the barn.

Ok, how do we get to 1b people in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change?

Did I mention the horse is out of the barn?  Oh yeah, I did.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2018, 08:08:42 AM »
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/

Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.  The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population. 

My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem:  We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room  for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population).  We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.

Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American. 

Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help.   Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances.  A great deal of the crashes are due to disease.   I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself.  In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment.   The horse is out of the barn.

Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?

And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2018, 08:14:36 AM »
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/

Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.  The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population. 

My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem:  We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room  for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population).  We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.

Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American. 

Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help.   Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances.  A great deal of the crashes are due to disease.   I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself.  In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment.   The horse is out of the barn.

Ok, how do we get to 1b people in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change?

Did I mention the horse is out of the barn?  Oh yeah, I did.

So when you say no one wants to talk about the real issue of overpopulation, what do you mean? It seems like a number of people have tried to engage on the topic but you don't actually want to talk about it.