Author Topic: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5  (Read 13262 times)

norabird

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7003
  • Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #200 on: October 15, 2018, 12:26:35 PM »
Better rail would absolutely cut down on my flying. I know I could cut it down simply by choosing not to do it but our lack of infrastructure is a real issue.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #201 on: October 15, 2018, 12:27:55 PM »
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.

I have a friend who makes this argument. He is childless and his hobby is flying aircraft. It is perhaps possible that this is a self-serving argument.

It doesn't matter if what we do has an impact or not. "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support." - your countryman Henry David Thoreau.


Now, what sort of lifestyle might we choose if we wished to wash our hands of personal contribution to climate change, and not to give it practically our support? I would suggest that many of the things we could do are things which would also help our finances and our personal health: stop flying, home and work closer to each-other and walk and cycle rather than drive, eat less junk food and meat, use less natural gas and electricity, and so on. If you care only about finances, these are all good things to do; if you care only about health, these are all good things to do; and if you care only about the environment, these are all good things to do.

Further, once you consider the environment of other countries, and how places like China have worse environmental practices than most of the West, and then consider also the collapse of manufacturing in the West, "buy local" is both an environmentalist and a patriotic maxim.

I'm old-fashioned. I believe: duty first. Whether or not I pay my taxes, do jury duty or military or civilian service of some kind, whether I speak well of my wife behind her back or not, whether or not I call people by racial epithets when out of their hearing, the practical impact of these things is almost zero. Nonetheless an adult in a civilised society has duties. A duty is something which whether you like it or not and whether it makes a difference or not you simply must do. A society is nothing but an accumulation of kept promises and duties met.

Now, some may reply that we as humans have no duties to one another. And I would answer that this is indeed a popular point of view, and explains much of the world's problems now, but I wash my hands of such an idea, and do not give it practically my support.

Agree completely.  But, it still doesn't change the equation.  The population size is what drives CO2 emissions.  We can, however, do our best to reduce it on an individual level.  I just don't think it will be enough.

Hirondelle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #202 on: October 15, 2018, 12:40:03 PM »
My one round trip on Via compared to flying - Via rail was less expensive but so much slower, even looking at the time spent getting to the airport early.  Really the railway companies seem to be putting most of their effort into freight.

OT, time is just as valuable to those of us who are retired.  Via rail certainly did not encourage to spend more time with them.     

By comparison, passenger rail in China is amazing. Cheaper than flying, you have a lot more space than in an airplane seat, getting through security isn't nearly as bad as the airport, and the trains run at something like 180 mph, which is still substantially slower than planes, but for flights under ~3 hours it ends up being a wash because you save enough time on security and boarding/deboarding to make up for the longer time in transit.

Yes, China's train system is great! Japan too. And it's not just China and Japan, several 'third world countries' like Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia (just Java though) actually have very decent train systems that the USA and Canada can (and should) be jealous of. Trains are quite an investment though so changes like that will take forever. It's frustrating to see how many cities say 'there's no demand for trains, the ones that are running are near empty' - well they're empty because they're extremely unconvenient! If there's a decent connection that beats other options people will use it. In Europe there's plans now to improve the international train options. Currently Amsterdam has a high-speed connection with Brussels, Paris and London, but Berlin still takes a whole 6 hours while it could be reduced to 3-4 if governments were willing to adjust schedules of other trains. This could greatly reduce the number of short flights.

On the positive side; one of Europe's most popular bus companies (Flixbus) for long distance travel is expanding to the USA and already covering quite a bunch of spots on the west coast. They're dirt cheap so especially for single people hard to beat their prices with a car. They're also relatively green/environmentally friendly so I hope they'll expand and a bus-based roadtrip through the USA might suddenly sound a lot nicer again :). Now just find a green way to cross the atlantic..

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #203 on: October 15, 2018, 12:41:23 PM »
Apparently alternative  jet fuel is in production and use in the US: https://www.energy.ca.gov/transportation/tour_additional/altair/index.html

United Airlines is doing a 3 year experiment with them. That's pretty exciting!

I am TOTALLY sad about how crappy train travel is. It could be so much fun!

YevKassem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #204 on: October 15, 2018, 12:46:13 PM »
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head.  For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement?  Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either:  a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation? 

I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #205 on: October 15, 2018, 12:47:26 PM »
In a recent coffee chat with my boss her upcoming vacation by plane. When challenged about why she couldn't take the train, the excuse was limited vacation days. But after some raised eyebrows, she did admit she could work on the train. Now the plan/challenge will be to convince the bosses higher up that all/most employees should be offered some flexible time the first couple of days of the summer vacation, if they travel by train (and work) rather than fly.

Imagine if we could convince more companies to let people work from home? If only those who really had to be present at their workplace (medical personell, bus drivers, etc) commuted, while the rest of us worked from home or smaller hubs. Not only would we get rid of a lot of travels, but we would need much fewer office buildings, with their energy use and occupied space.


YevKassem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #206 on: October 15, 2018, 12:49:33 PM »


Imagine if we could convince more companies to let people work from home? If only those who really had to be present at their workplace (medical personell, bus drivers, etc) commuted, while the rest of us worked from home or smaller hubs. Not only would we get rid of a lot of travels, but we would need much fewer office buildings, with their energy use and occupied space.




I think this is one of the most impactful things we can do.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #207 on: October 15, 2018, 12:51:10 PM »
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head.  For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement?  Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either:  a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation? 

I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.

Being FIRE doesn't mean giving up advocacy and civic engagement. It just means you don't have to paid to do it, right? :)

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #208 on: October 15, 2018, 12:54:18 PM »
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head.  For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement?  Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either:  a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation? 

I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.
I'm FIRED, and 'saving humanity' is my full time job. Even though I know it's pretty much futile.

This past week I focused on making this video:  https://youtu.be/uKyhPn4BpS4

to encourage people to donate to my lobbying campaign to end us subsidies to animal agriculture : https://www.lobbyists4good.org/animal-ag-subsidies

I'm researching and preparing to join the lobbyist I hire, and meet with our reps to explain why we need to end federal subsidies to animal agriculture.

I'm donating time and money to the Vegan Justice League, which targets Welfare cowboy politicians

... and loads more.

Also, don't pull that, "For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made" weasel language, as if it's in doubt. Do you mean to imply we are making much ado about nothing?

We are all talking about the current predicament of man made global warming specifically. There's no 'if'.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 12:59:00 PM by Malaysia41 »

RichCantante

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #209 on: October 15, 2018, 12:57:04 PM »
If you have ever ridden a train (or even a subway) with children you will experience the true joy of trains. Completely opposite to the hatred and boredom children feel in cars.

In Europe I took trains and discovered that it was not cheap at all! So there goes another argument. Kind of heartened to hear that trains in Canada are also secondary to freight. Freight has priority in the US now.

I have always wanted to get one of those Amtrak passes (they have different time periods and geo areas). Inspired to do so!

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2814
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #210 on: October 15, 2018, 12:59:43 PM »
https://earther.gizmodo.com/geoengineering-is-inevitable-1829623031

If I had a few billion I might do it myself. IMO it'd be better to start now before SHTF and while everything is still working well so we have resources to deal with unforeseen effects.

-W

Hirondelle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #211 on: October 15, 2018, 01:00:36 PM »
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head.  For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement?  Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either:  a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation? 

I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.

Being FIRE doesn't mean giving up advocacy and civic engagement. It just means you don't have to paid to do it, right? :)

Exactly that. FIRE means you don't need a job for the money - so you can work any environmental related job. The internet retirement police might follow you and blame you for not sitting on your porch..

Besides that, I can think of a dozen more problems that I'd like to see ended now (diseases, wars, poverty) but for which I don't have the resources nor the skills/knowledge and even if I had them, I couldn't solve all those problems on my own. So I work a job working on one of them, donate money to several of the others, try to reduce my negative (environmental) impact as much as I can and hope that others will do the same so together we actually get somewhere.

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #212 on: October 15, 2018, 01:04:41 PM »
I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.
I believe it is up to each person to minimize their own carbon footprint as much as possible, while recognizing that we will each have weak areas. I don't have a car, I don't waste much food, I try to avoid buying new things and most of my electricity comes from renewable sources. But I travel by air and I plan on having kids. Everyone has pluses and minuses in their lives, and individually our impacts are small, so we need to do our part AND convince our governments to take real action through legislation, while also changing our demand so that companies are also incentivized to reduce emissions too. At this point, it's going to take huge changes to avert the worst consequences, and the sooner we start the better.
Also, I don't think anyone over 50 should be allowed to block climate change action, since they will die before they see the results of their stupidity and they are allowing their own greed and short-sightedness to rob future generations of a liveable planet.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2814
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #213 on: October 15, 2018, 01:05:35 PM »
FIRE (at least the sort we do here) depends almost completely on modern capitalist society fueled by fossil fuels. Period. We're just as much a part of the problem as someone who's working 9-5.

-W


Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #214 on: October 15, 2018, 01:12:11 PM »
Also, I don't think anyone over 50 should be allowed to block climate change action, since they will die before they see the results of their stupidity and they are allowing their own greed and short-sightedness to rob future generations of a liveable planet.

Ha! If only!

FIRE (at least the sort we do here) depends almost completely on modern capitalist society fueled by fossil fuels. Period. We're just as much a part of the problem as someone who's working 9-5.

-W

I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?

YevKassem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #215 on: October 15, 2018, 01:14:26 PM »
FIRE (at least the sort we do here) depends almost completely on modern capitalist society fueled by fossil fuels. Period. We're just as much a part of the problem as someone who's working 9-5.

-W



Exactly -- that was my point.  Unless you're like Malaysia41 and FIRE so that you can work full-time on advocacy, you should get back to work if you really do care...

Hirondelle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #216 on: October 15, 2018, 01:23:40 PM »
I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.

I think this has briefly been touched upon before, but children in developed countries use a lot more resources compared to children born in countries where people still have 3+ kids (something like 10x, depending on the countries you compare). I do fully agree with you that women education and child survival should improve to reduce those birthrates, but that's no freebie to get more babies over here in the west. I never really get the argument of "our population is declining already!!". Yes, it's gonna be a problem as our pension system (SS equivalent in my country and many others) is built on a small group of elderly and a large group of working adults. It's also built on a limited number of people that need intensive healthcare. But does the fact that this has been our system for the last 100 or so years mean that we have to keep the system this way? Do you think our current number of inhabitants is a 'good' number that should be maintained?

I'm not saying people should completely stop having kids. But there's a few ways we could slightly reduce our numbers. Legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability and sex education, possibility for euthanasia at old age/sickness and no child benefits after the 1st or 2nd child would be some options. All of these options could also be used in countries with higher birth rates than ours. I don't think any of those measures will be impactful enough though to solve the environmental problems, so we'll still have to do other things. I don't see any good in forced 1 child policies like China's and killing people for the sake of the environment also doesn't sound like a good idea.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2814
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #217 on: October 15, 2018, 01:26:57 PM »
I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?

Where do you think that 4% SWR, dividend, rent check comes from? It comes from modern industry generating profits for you as an owner of the company/building/resource - and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, if your "FIRE" is subsistence farming, no use of electricity or fossil fuels, no foods other than what you can grow/hunt or trade with others in your immediate area, and maybe one very old and well used bicycle that you'll keep for a long time as your ONLY form of transportation, then my comments don't apply.

-W

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3124
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #218 on: October 15, 2018, 01:27:52 PM »
Exactly -- that was my point.  Unless you're like Malaysia41 and FIRE so that you can work full-time on advocacy, you should get back to work if you really do care...

Eh? Being FIRE is completely orthogonal with caring about the environment. At best, it's a tenuous link.

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #219 on: October 15, 2018, 01:30:00 PM »
I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?

Where do you think that 4% SWR, dividend, rent check comes from? It comes from modern industry generating profits for you as an owner of the company/building/resource - and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, if your "FIRE" is subsistence farming, no use of electricity or fossil fuels, no foods other than what you can grow/hunt or trade with others in your immediate area, and maybe one very old and well used bicycle that you'll keep for a long time as your ONLY form of transportation, then my comments don't apply.

-W

My understanding the the 4% withdrawal rate comes from our economy generating profits. An economy fueled by alternative energy and sustainable practices could do the same. There were a few discussions on here and links to ethical investing.

I do see what you mean about capitalism and perpetual growth/consumption, though. *shrug* I guess we'll see.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12076
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #220 on: October 15, 2018, 01:45:10 PM »
https://earther.gizmodo.com/geoengineering-is-inevitable-1829623031

If I had a few billion I might do it myself. IMO it'd be better to start now before SHTF and while everything is still working well so we have resources to deal with unforeseen effects.

-W

Huge can of worms.

Geoengineering is a great idea and all . . . but it's super politically complicated.  If you fuck something up and make things worse, the whole world pays.  What happens if the US settles on one theory for how to fix the problem, and China settles on another?  Do they both implement their contradictory changes simultaneously?  What if a geoengineering will make most of the world much better, but most of the midwestern US an unlivable hell-hole . . . do you think the US will go along with it for the good of everyone else?

I can easily see geoengineering arguments leading to world war.

YevKassem

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #221 on: October 15, 2018, 01:52:52 PM »



I can easily see geoengineering arguments leading to world war.
[/quote]


And world was is likely the worst possible thing for the environment...

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #222 on: October 15, 2018, 01:55:54 PM »
I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?

Where do you think that 4% SWR, dividend, rent check comes from? It comes from modern industry generating profits for you as an owner of the company/building/resource - and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, if your "FIRE" is subsistence farming, no use of electricity or fossil fuels, no foods other than what you can grow/hunt or trade with others in your immediate area, and maybe one very old and well used bicycle that you'll keep for a long time as your ONLY form of transportation, then my comments don't apply.

-W

My understanding the the 4% withdrawal rate comes from our economy generating profits. An economy fueled by alternative energy and sustainable practices could do the same. There were a few discussions on here and links to ethical investing.

I do see what you mean about capitalism and perpetual growth/consumption, though. *shrug* I guess we'll see.

There used to be a direct link between CO2 emissions and GDP growth. That link is disappering in an increasing number of countries: http://www.ocppc.ma/publications/decoupling-economic-growth-co2-emissions-world

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #223 on: October 15, 2018, 02:02:14 PM »
I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.

I think this has briefly been touched upon before, but children in developed countries use a lot more resources compared to children born in countries where people still have 3+ kids (something like 10x, depending on the countries you compare). I do fully agree with you that women education and child survival should improve to reduce those birthrates, but that's no freebie to get more babies over here in the west. I never really get the argument of "our population is declining already!!". Yes, it's gonna be a problem as our pension system (SS equivalent in my country and many others) is built on a small group of elderly and a large group of working adults. It's also built on a limited number of people that need intensive healthcare. But does the fact that this has been our system for the last 100 or so years mean that we have to keep the system this way? Do you think our current number of inhabitants is a 'good' number that should be maintained?

I'm not saying people should completely stop having kids. But there's a few ways we could slightly reduce our numbers. Legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability and sex education, possibility for euthanasia at old age/sickness and no child benefits after the 1st or 2nd child would be some options. All of these options could also be used in countries with higher birth rates than ours. I don't think any of those measures will be impactful enough though to solve the environmental problems, so we'll still have to do other things. I don't see any good in forced 1 child policies like China's and killing people for the sake of the environment also doesn't sound like a good idea.
I like all of the ideas for population control through social education and incentives in your second paragraph, and they can be implemented in developed countries too. I disagree with any forced population control methods, since I think reproduction is a natural biological need for many, if not a human right.
For me personally, since I lead a relatively low carbon life compared to my country's average, I think my kids would too, at least as long as I had control over it. I also think that if all the people concerned about climate change didn't have kids, the next generation would only consist of people whose parents didn't care, and that's not necessarily a desirable outcome. In my country, our population is small vs our landmass, and our habitable area is probably going to increase as temperatures go up. We can accommodate both more immigrants, and more people being born, but at the same time we need to transition away from fossil fuels and overconsumption. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to just stop having kids, but many people will choose not too, and most people will choose to have less as they get wealthier, healthier and more educated, so the problem will gradually solve itself if we put the right resources to work.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #224 on: October 15, 2018, 02:06:15 PM »
This discussion is going round in circles a bit isn't it!

chaskavitch

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #225 on: October 15, 2018, 02:15:04 PM »
I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.

I think this has briefly been touched upon before, but children in developed countries use a lot more resources compared to children born in countries where people still have 3+ kids (something like 10x, depending on the countries you compare). I do fully agree with you that women education and child survival should improve to reduce those birthrates, but that's no freebie to get more babies over here in the west. I never really get the argument of "our population is declining already!!". Yes, it's gonna be a problem as our pension system (SS equivalent in my country and many others) is built on a small group of elderly and a large group of working adults. It's also built on a limited number of people that need intensive healthcare. But does the fact that this has been our system for the last 100 or so years mean that we have to keep the system this way? Do you think our current number of inhabitants is a 'good' number that should be maintained?

I'm not saying people should completely stop having kids. But there's a few ways we could slightly reduce our numbers. Legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability and sex education, possibility for euthanasia at old age/sickness and no child benefits after the 1st or 2nd child would be some options. All of these options could also be used in countries with higher birth rates than ours. I don't think any of those measures will be impactful enough though to solve the environmental problems, so we'll still have to do other things. I don't see any good in forced 1 child policies like China's and killing people for the sake of the environment also doesn't sound like a good idea.
I like all of the ideas for population control through social education and incentives in your second paragraph, and they can be implemented in developed countries too. I disagree with any forced population control methods, since I think reproduction is a natural biological need for many, if not a human right.
For me personally, since I lead a relatively low carbon life compared to my country's average, I think my kids would too, at least as long as I had control over it. I also think that if all the people concerned about climate change didn't have kids, the next generation would only consist of people whose parents didn't care, and that's not necessarily a desirable outcome. In my country, our population is small vs our landmass, and our habitable area is probably going to increase as temperatures go up. We can accommodate both more immigrants, and more people being born, but at the same time we need to transition away from fossil fuels and overconsumption. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to just stop having kids, but many people will choose not too, and most people will choose to have less as they get wealthier, healthier and more educated, so the problem will gradually solve itself if we put the right resources to work.

I'd agree that we have a problem with legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education here in America.  In another discussion about generational poverty, the point was brought up that if people weren't raised in an environment where getting pregnant early was "just what happens", and they had real information about how to cause/prevent pregnancy, it would make a huge difference in a lot of lives.  Fewer unwanted teenage births, more people who are able to finish their education and have time to make careers for themselves, etc.  Yes, they might end up being people who have more money to travel abroad and pollute with their plane trips, but they'll probably have fewer children, and be far more productive throughout their lives.

Also, I had to add this (semi-helpful) picture as a response to the bolded part of @PoutineLover 's response.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 02:17:34 PM by chaskavitch »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #226 on: October 15, 2018, 02:28:46 PM »
Is the assumption here that "caring about the future of the humanity/the planet" is under genetic control?

Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #227 on: October 15, 2018, 02:39:04 PM »
This discussion is going round in circles a bit isn't it!

I've found it interesting to get different resources and perspectives on the subject! It's also sparked interesting conversations with friends offline, like finding out that different jet fuels are being highly invested in.

All of the people who actually work on climate issues that I've spoken to are optimistic that we can get a handle on this and a lot of good things are happening. SO I'm feeling better about that!

BookLoverL

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • Location: England
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #228 on: October 15, 2018, 02:39:26 PM »
Regarding how FIRE fits in with being eco-friendly: how is it eco-friendly to spend my entire life working at jobs that are basically pointless, using up plastic because that's the requirements for the filing system, propping up companies that are producing things made of plastic, etc.? The alternative is to do whatever I like, and my hobbies are relatively eco-friendly ones like going for walks and using the internet which I already have on my second-hand laptop, going to libraries, and other relatively low-impact things?

I'd say work is one of the areas of my life where I use the most plastic atm (though I do admittedly still need to move away from plastic-wrapped food, but I'm working on that - I even borrowed a book about it), and where I'm using most resources. It's certainly the cause of at least 80% of my driving (no public transport route from here to there). The sooner I can either FIRE or switch careers to something where I can work from home using few resources, the lower my footprint will be. Plus, if I retired I'd have much more time to focus on things like learning how to garden.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9240
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #229 on: October 15, 2018, 02:57:43 PM »

I'd agree that we have a problem with  legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education here in America.  In another discussion about generational poverty, the point was brought up that if people weren't raised in an environment where getting pregnant early was "just what happens", and they had real information about how to cause/prevent pregnancy, it would make a huge difference in a lot of lives.  Fewer unwanted teenage births, more people who are able to finish their education and have time to make careers for themselves, etc.  Yes, they might end up being people who have more money to travel abroad and pollute with their plane trips, but they'll probably have fewer children, and be far more productive throughout their lives.

Umm, here is where I get fussy about names and terms.  "Here in America" should be here in the United States.  I am also in North America, and we have legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education.  Not as good as I would like, but not bad.

As well, timing of births matter.  I know I keep talking about generation time, but it does matter.  Having your first baby at 20 is totally different from having your first at 30, if it is repeated for a few generations.   So a family can have 2 (or occasionally even 3) and not have a huge impact, if they have them later.  This is where I think the effect of women's education comes in, you don't have babies if you are still in school and working to have a future, you have the babies when you are more settled in your life.  If you have no education and no plans other than babies, you have your babies.


PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #230 on: October 15, 2018, 03:12:01 PM »
@chaskavitch thanks for the pic, that movie was on my mind as I was writing :p

chaskavitch

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #231 on: October 15, 2018, 04:19:01 PM »

I'd agree that we have a problem with  legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education here in America.  In another discussion about generational poverty, the point was brought up that if people weren't raised in an environment where getting pregnant early was "just what happens", and they had real information about how to cause/prevent pregnancy, it would make a huge difference in a lot of lives.  Fewer unwanted teenage births, more people who are able to finish their education and have time to make careers for themselves, etc.  Yes, they might end up being people who have more money to travel abroad and pollute with their plane trips, but they'll probably have fewer children, and be far more productive throughout their lives.

Umm, here is where I get fussy about names and terms.  "Here in America" should be here in the United States.  I am also in North America, and we have legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education.  Not as good as I would like, but not bad.

As well, timing of births matter.  I know I keep talking about generation time, but it does matter.  Having your first baby at 20 is totally different from having your first at 30, if it is repeated for a few generations.   So a family can have 2 (or occasionally even 3) and not have a huge impact, if they have them later.  This is where I think the effect of women's education comes in, you don't have babies if you are still in school and working to have a future, you have the babies when you are more settled in your life.  If you have no education and no plans other than babies, you have your babies.

You make a very good point.  Thanks for bringing it up :) 

As far as generation timing and the number of children each couple/individual has - I had a conversation the other day with a coworker about how long it would take the Duggars (of "19 Kids and Counting" fame) to take over the world if each of their 19 children also had 19 children starting at 21-23 years old.  It's not a long time.  By the time their youngest is 40, Michelle Duggar will be ~84, and they'd have 361 grandkids.  They already have twelve, and I can't figure out how many great grandkids they'd have (in 40 years).  If my math is right, after all their grandchildren had children, they'd have 6859 people in that generation, then 130,321, then 2,476,099.  That's not even counting the previous living generations. 

I'm not going to tell people they're not allowed to have 19 kids if they want, and I know that over time we're all related to everyone else just a tiny bit, but that math just boggles my mind.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #232 on: October 15, 2018, 05:52:57 PM »
Agree completely.  But, it still doesn't change the equation.  The population size is what drives CO2 emissions.  We can, however, do our best to reduce it on an individual level.  I just don't think it will be enough.
Nope, you're still not grasping it. This is the equation:

Impact = Population x Consumption (Individual)

For example, 10 people emitting 2 tonne of CO2e - most Third World countries - have the same impact as 1 person emitting 20t CO2e - most First World countries. The figures are a bit muddied by the First World outsourcing its pollution to the Third World. If we buy a billion doohickeys and they're all made in China, then the emissions from making those doohickeys is commonly attributed to China, but really they're ours. In any case the atmosphere does not care about countries and blame games.

Now, the important thing about the equation is this:

People in the First World don't want to reduce their consumption, so they prefer to blame the population part of the equation. People in the Third World do the opposite. The truth is that both matter. BUT - while we in the First World can HALVE our consumption within 12 months without significant change to our quality of life, the only way to halve population is with genocide. As I am not a Nazi or Communist, I'm not in favour of genocide. So that leaves reducing consumption.

People like to focus on the population part because then the solutions are all someone else's problem. If I say, "well the real problem is all those brown people having babies", then I get to keep tooling around in my Cessna. If I say, "obviously if people come to a high consumption country like Australia, our impact will be greater," and so I can just blame immigration, and I can jump in the SUV to drive to the airport to get into a Boeing for a quick trip across the Pacific. In the West, focusing on the population side of the equation is a mixture of avoiding the inconvenience of having to actually do something and ordinary old bigotry. Do not be a lazy cowardly racist, act.

Again, most of the things we can do to reduce our consumption, and thus our impact, are also things which benefit our finances and our health.

And again, since fossil fuels are finite, at some point we are going to have to use less of them anyway, we may as well collapse now and avoid the rush.

The Earth being finite is perhaps one of the hardest concepts for Westerners to grasp. This is why our screens these days are dominated by postapocalyptic and cornucopian fantasies. Shows like The Walking Dead are really about "OMG everything will run out at once!" and shows like Star Trek are about pressing a button and everything you need simply materialises in front of you. As usual, the truth lies in between these two absurd extremes. The world is not going to collapse overnight, but we are never going to have hordes of intelligent robots serving our every whim as we kick back on a couch on Mars. It's not going to happen.

Drop your consumption now. Your children will have less of a choice in the matter, and their children will have no choice, so it is better to build the habits now.


Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #233 on: October 16, 2018, 01:01:09 AM »
This video is talking about soldiers returning from war, returning to an alienated society. But he makes the broader point that as wealth increases, mental health decreases. For example, women in wealthy parts of the US have more depression than women in subsaharan Africa. This is not an argument for removing women's rights, obviously. It's simply noting that wealth and spending are poor substitutes for the actual things that make people happy, which is a sense of community and purpose, connectedness to other people.

I would suggest that cooking meals from fresh ingredients and inviting other people to join you at the dinner table is more emotionally enriching than eating a TV dinner while watching TV together. That being out in the open on foot, on bicycle or on the train leads to more connections with other people than sitting in a car and swearing at other drivers. Likewise these things will help your physical health.

So once again, the things helping the environment are good things to do anyway. I really can't see the argument against them, except sheer inertia. "But... I've always had TV dinners and driven an SUV." And some people have always been alcoholics, this does not mean it's good for them.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9240
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #234 on: October 16, 2018, 05:54:42 AM »
^Kyle  you are totally right.  But we have to look deeper.  Why did people start eating all this prepared food instead of cooking their own?  Why did TV become so pervasive?  It is market-driven.  All that manufacturing potential left over from WWII - marketing went into high gear persuading people to consume, becasue there was all this capacity and not enough demand.  Some I think has  been mostly beneficial, I love my computer and my Nexus 5 phone.  But so much is excessive, and people get on the treadmill and don't have time to reflect.  To me that is one of the great benefits of MMM's philosophy; in the use of financial management he encourages people to disconnect from the consumer society's heavy push.

Re population/consumption, it is not an either/or situation.  It is both.  Too many people, some of whom consume way too many resources, and the others wanting to have more consumption as their income increases.  Which comes back to the marketing - we have seen drunk driving and smoking go down because of societal pressure.  Somehow we need to change the way society looks at conspicuous consumption - not "oh I envy them", but "oh, poor suckers, the only way they can look good to themselves is by spending all that money".  Too bad these days thrifty seems to equal stingy, and the term "wastrel" has been dropped from our vocabulary.

MarciaB

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 436
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Oregon
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #235 on: October 16, 2018, 03:34:50 PM »
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?

A smaller example of behavioral change would be that about 10 years ago we all got paper and plastic bags from the grocery store as a matter of course. And now it's more likely that we all carry around reusable bags with us (many people, a lot of the time). Who knew that the American grocery consumer could be bothered with remembering to bring the bags from the car and use them? I wouldn't have predicted it.

It's a different conversation as to whether these reusable bags save resources (net savings)? Don't know about that. Just commenting on habit change that surprised me (we Americans can be pretty lazy and entitled).

MarciaB

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 436
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Oregon
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #236 on: October 16, 2018, 04:13:18 PM »
Even if you make the most environmentally ethical choices possible, in the western world, your carbon footprint is still ~3x what's arguably sustainable

Quote
But the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.

-http://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416

I feel that a Swiftian solution may help us here.  What if we eat the homeless?

They don't have much of a carbon footprint though, do they?  /wink

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3349
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #237 on: October 16, 2018, 04:22:07 PM »
Even if you make the most environmentally ethical choices possible, in the western world, your carbon footprint is still ~3x what's arguably sustainable

Quote
But the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.

-http://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416

I feel that a Swiftian solution may help us here.  What if we eat the homeless?

They don't have much of a carbon footprint though, do they?  /wink

You guys, Mötorhead has been trying to tell us the solution for like thirty years!

https://youtu.be/0LZxelSc62Y

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #238 on: October 16, 2018, 05:38:04 PM »

6. Buy electrical power from other sources preferring in order: wind, geothermal, solar, hydroelectric, landfill gas or natural gas, waste burning, bagasse. Don't even think about nuclear or coal.


Nuclear is one of those topics that is highly emotional (on both sides) and therefore there is not a lot of sober discussion about it, but there should be, especially in respect to climate change.  For example, CO2 emissions per capita (in tons):

United States:  15.54
Germany:  9.47
France:  5.12

Nuclear power accounts for about 15% of power in Germany (and declining), and 75% in France (I just included the US for reference).  Nuclear power is controversial for a number of reasons, but as a zero carbon energy source it needs to be discussed soberly in connection with climate change. 

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #239 on: October 16, 2018, 06:32:20 PM »
I clicked on an article in one of our more right wing papers here to see how they were presenting the report. There's a paywall but here's the type of language from the sneak peek:

"spicy broth of green politics and tamed science"

What can we do when faced with right wing media sources who continue to discredit action on climate change as "green politics" (and they take a very dim view of anything green). Whenever the journalist or columnist wants to attack the language is consistently mocking in tone, which I feel prevents readers from taking another view. I feel like media is the biggest obstacle.

In their defence, they were pleased to report that nuclear power is being considered by these "Greenies". (Hey maybe it's because they are scientists not Greenies... )

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9240
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #240 on: October 16, 2018, 07:00:50 PM »
I
In their defence, they were pleased to report that nuclear power is being considered by these "Greenies". (Hey maybe it's because they are scientists not Greenies... )

And maybe a lot of scientists are "greenies" because of the science?

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #241 on: October 16, 2018, 07:40:01 PM »
Nuclear power is controversial for a number of reasons, but as a zero carbon energy source it needs to be discussed soberly in connection with climate change. 
It's not zero-carbon, it's low carbon. There exist no zero carbon electricity sources. The iron must be dug from the ground - with drills using oil. It must be roasted with coking coal - a process chemically releasing CO2. It must be melted and alloyed with other things like vanadium for hardening or chromium to make it "stainless". Aluminium for wind turbines must also be dug up and refined, and it's made with huge amounts of electricity. Concrete's materials are likewise dug up and ground up and refined, and the concrete setting chemical process also releases CO2. And then the plants when built have to be maintained with vehicles tooling around, parts replaced and so on.

Hydroelectric's often thought of as low emissions, but in some cases the emissions are even higher than for coal - because they flood a wooded river valley, and all the plant matter rots and releases methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas (at least 23 times stronger than CO2, though some scientists recently are arguing for calling it 32 times or even higher).

The net result is that for each kWh of electricity produced, we get something like,

0.07kgCO2-equivalent = Geothermal, Solar PV, Solar thermal, Wind
0.22kgCO2e = Hydroelectric/kWh
0.44kgCO2e = Nuclear, Landfill gas or Natural gas
1.50kgCO2e = Oil or Coal

Now, some individual power plants are better, and some are much worse; my own state of Victoria's old Hazelwood plant burning brown coal had about twice the emissions of a regular plant. And the French nuclear plants are pretty good, while the Chinese ones are awful in terms of carbon emissions.

There's no such thing as zero emissions. There's just more or less emissions. But again we come to Jeavon's Paradox; halving the emissions from each kWh of electricity may lead to more electricity use, and thus the emissions don't drop as much as you might expect, or in fact they go up.

In any case, with or without global warming the issue is depleting resources. The oil is going to run short, then the gas, and finally the coal. Some time in the middle the uranium will run short.

We can make the uranium last longer with breeder reactors, but that also makes more plutonium, and going on the Iran and DPRK experience, quite simply the Western world is not going to let the Third World have a stack of plutonium - any solution to the energy and emissions problem must be a global one, or along with electricity it will generate conflicts. Thorium reactors have some promise, but thorium reactors require a plutonium seed, so that each thorium reactor requires a uranium reactor.

Basically, if we insist on powering our lifestyles by burning things - whether the burning is combustion or fission - then our lifestyle like those things will be finite.

Consume less. It takes some years and billions of dollars to build new and better power plants, but we can reduce our consumption now. And again: even if you don't care about the environment or depleting resources, these are all good things to do for our finances and physical health, too. You don't need to be a greenie to think that fresh fruit and vegies and bicycling are better for you and your wallet than takeout and driving.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 07:48:13 PM by Kyle Schuant »

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #242 on: October 16, 2018, 08:03:49 PM »
I
In their defence, they were pleased to report that nuclear power is being considered by these "Greenies". (Hey maybe it's because they are scientists not Greenies... )

And maybe a lot of scientists are "greenies" because of the science?

Quite. I don't think facts ever bothered the columnists of these types of paper :P

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #243 on: October 16, 2018, 08:59:19 PM »
That's why it's so painful to watch governments not only turn their backs on the idea of leadership, but actively work in the opposite direction.

Social and cultural change generally start from outside government. Government nearly always follows.

Mandela, Gandhi, King, Havel, etc all started outside government. I'd love to see government lead, but the most effective thing for anyone who wants government to act to do is to act first.

That's why I'm acting, or one of the reasons. When enough other people see the pattern, they'll stop blaming others' inaction and act themselves. Then politicians will see where the votes are going.

I'm pretty sure Gandhi had situations like this in mind when he suggested to be the chance you wanted to see. The more you live by your values the better your life, even if others aren't doing it. No amount of material pleasure can make up for living against your values.

This quote doesn't perfectly overlap, but its spirit is somewhat relevant, or at least motivates me:
Quote
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

I'm not waiting for government to lead, nor do I want future generations to look back at me and ask why I waited to act when the signs were clear.

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #244 on: October 16, 2018, 09:10:23 PM »
Traveling cross country, at least in US, sounds hellacious and unrealistic for families. I do think that people being able to see different parts of the world is an awesome thing and there should be a conscious effort to create opportunities for that!

I'm taking the train to L.A. from New York in a couple weeks. It's a third-world train system, but it's quiet, spacious, and I have plenty of work (editing my next book) that solitude benefits.

I'm also learning to sail. So far getting on the water is a vacation mere miles from Manhattan at tiny fraction the cost or pollution the cost of flying. Eventually, I expect to sail to other continents, voyages I expect will rival or surpass any other trips I've taken.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #245 on: October 17, 2018, 12:38:47 AM »
Nuclear power is controversial for a number of reasons, but as a zero carbon energy source it needs to be discussed soberly in connection with climate change. 
It's not zero-carbon, it's low carbon. There exist no zero carbon electricity sources. The iron must be dug from the ground - with drills using oil. It must be roasted with coking coal - a process chemically releasing CO2. It must be melted and alloyed with other things like vanadium for hardening or chromium to make it "stainless". Aluminium for wind turbines must also be dug up and refined, and it's made with huge amounts of electricity. Concrete's materials are likewise dug up and ground up and refined, and the concrete setting chemical process also releases CO2. And then the plants when built have to be maintained with vehicles tooling around, parts replaced and so on.

Hydroelectric's often thought of as low emissions, but in some cases the emissions are even higher than for coal - because they flood a wooded river valley, and all the plant matter rots and releases methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas (at least 23 times stronger than CO2, though some scientists recently are arguing for calling it 32 times or even higher).

The net result is that for each kWh of electricity produced, we get something like,

0.07kgCO2-equivalent = Geothermal, Solar PV, Solar thermal, Wind
0.22kgCO2e = Hydroelectric/kWh
0.44kgCO2e = Nuclear, Landfill gas or Natural gas
1.50kgCO2e = Oil or Coal

Now, some individual power plants are better, and some are much worse; my own state of Victoria's old Hazelwood plant burning brown coal had about twice the emissions of a regular plant. And the French nuclear plants are pretty good, while the Chinese ones are awful in terms of carbon emissions.

There's no such thing as zero emissions. There's just more or less emissions. But again we come to Jeavon's Paradox; halving the emissions from each kWh of electricity may lead to more electricity use, and thus the emissions don't drop as much as you might expect, or in fact they go up.

In any case, with or without global warming the issue is depleting resources. The oil is going to run short, then the gas, and finally the coal. Some time in the middle the uranium will run short.

We can make the uranium last longer with breeder reactors, but that also makes more plutonium, and going on the Iran and DPRK experience, quite simply the Western world is not going to let the Third World have a stack of plutonium - any solution to the energy and emissions problem must be a global one, or along with electricity it will generate conflicts. Thorium reactors have some promise, but thorium reactors require a plutonium seed, so that each thorium reactor requires a uranium reactor.

Basically, if we insist on powering our lifestyles by burning things - whether the burning is combustion or fission - then our lifestyle like those things will be finite.

Consume less. It takes some years and billions of dollars to build new and better power plants, but we can reduce our consumption now. And again: even if you don't care about the environment or depleting resources, these are all good things to do for our finances and physical health, too. You don't need to be a greenie to think that fresh fruit and vegies and bicycling are better for you and your wallet than takeout and driving.

The emission numbers for hydro will vary greatly throughout the world. LCA analysis for Norwegian hydro is at 2.4 grams/kWh: https://www.ostfoldforskning.no/media/1056/734-1.pdf
The difference is mainly due to colder climate and dams at higher altitudes where there is less organic matter to rot, and some relatively large river plants where there are no dams. Lot of other downsides to hydro, including damages to the eco system, but climate emissions are not always one of them. To keep the remaining waterfalls, we probably won’t build many more large dams, but there is a large potential in updating old hydro plants, and building smaller (low impact) river plants.

The high emissions from methane can also play in our favor: if we build biogas plants to capture methane from natural processes, like waste water, waste, manure, etc, we can get heat and electricity with negative co2 emissions. Some Swedish studies have shown co2 emissions of -152 % from selected agricultural biogas plants, just because they remove so much CH4. Some places they are even experimenting with bio-CCS: by connecting the biogas plant to a hothouse you could capture the CO2 through food production.

100% agree with your main point: wasting resources is the main problem.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #246 on: October 17, 2018, 01:47:09 AM »
Nate Hagens of the Bottleneck Foundation gave this 'Blindspots and Superheroes' talk in 2015 at an earth day conference.  This presentation, much like the Archdruid Reports and W. Catton's 'Overshoot' book, further opened my eyes up to the scale of our predicament.

https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg

Such a small number of views for such a powerful lecture. I thought you all might find Mr. Hagen's perspective interesting.

Oh yeah - just a small aside: about 19 minutes in, he does a fine job translating energy consumption into a detailed analysis of terrestrial vertebrate biomass, (livestock biomass predominates, and total vert biomass is arguably 6x more than the carrying capacity of earth).  It was one of the early presentations I saw where I *really* began questioning my own meat consumption. Just as his data from Vaklav and Chefurka convinced me to stop eating pigs and cows, he goes on to say he eats 'spa beef' ... **wut?** Uh, it's just so ... IDK, ironic and bemusing.

If you watch it, please share reactions, insights, etc.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 01:59:18 AM by Malaysia41 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12076
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #247 on: October 17, 2018, 07:39:11 AM »
That's why it's so painful to watch governments not only turn their backs on the idea of leadership, but actively work in the opposite direction.

Social and cultural change generally start from outside government. Government nearly always follows.

I have two responses to this:

1.  There is and has been significant social and cultural change regarding the environment, green energy, and green policies at a grass roots level.  Making personal sacrifices is made a bit more difficult when you see your neighbour's lifted diesel truck rollin' coal as he drives the block and a half home from the local McDonald's, throwing wrappers out the open window with the A/C on full blast.  That neighbour, in fact, is the direct result of a coordinated attack campaign on the grass roots environmental movement by right wing politicians in the pockets of big business and is never going to go away until we stop that source.

2.  The southern states voluntarily gave up their slaves?  Marijuana was legalized across the US?  There are plenty of instances where the Government is extremely slow to follow social changes.  We're getting to the point where this is no longer acceptable.  The reluctance to do the right thing is causing irreparable damage.


I'm not waiting for the government to lead, and do advocate that everyone try to do their own part.  I'm a realist though, and recognize that until the government starts to lead the problem won't get better.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #248 on: October 17, 2018, 01:56:21 PM »

Consume less. It takes some years and billions of dollars to build new and better power plants, but we can reduce our consumption now. And again: even if you don't care about the environment or depleting resources, these are all good things to do for our finances and physical health, too. You don't need to be a greenie to think that fresh fruit and vegies and bicycling are better for you and your wallet than takeout and driving.

That's all true, but I'm skeptical this is a realistic path to a solution.    Everyone knows you should save for retirement.  Most people don't.  Everyone already knows you should exercise.  Most people don't.   Everyone already knows you should eat right.  Most people don't.   Everyone already knows that it costs lots of money to drive a big SUV.   Lots of people still do.    Everyone already knows some extra attic insulation is a good investment.  Most people don't get around to it.  All those things provide the individual with benefits, directly and indirectly, and most people just don't get around to it.  And let's face it.  If people are cold they are going to turn up the heat.  If they are hot, they'll flip on the AC.  You might convince them to set the thermostat at 66 instead of 69, but you won't get much more than that.   And maybe not even that. 

So now we have global warming where the benefits are kind of abstract and occur in the future.  Can we really convince people to change their lifestyles because of this issue, when they won't already?  I find that unlikely.  I believe there must be systemic changes how we generate and consume energy. 


Meowkins

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Off hugging a squishy cat. Probably.
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #249 on: October 17, 2018, 02:51:05 PM »
Fortunately/unfortunately, climate change isn't really abstract anymore. There are lots of changes that are very apparent in physical environments now related to the way things are changing. We're not stopping climate change, sure, because it's already here. But we're trying to make sure we have something sustainable to move forward on so that it doesn't get a whole lot worse.

I'm gleaning there are a few approaches here that I've seen. 1) It's futile. Do your best to prepare and save yourself. 2) It's futile. Do what you can to lessen the effects, anyway. 3) We have a chance to make things better. Do everything you can to be part of the solution. I guess they're all fairly valid. No one's going with option, "EHHH, WHO GIVES A SHIT, WE ALL DIE ANYWAY, PARTY HARDY." Which is a relief.

Being in the camp #3 myself, it's been really awesome to hear what different folks are doing, reading the resources you've shared, and figuring out how I can do more to live a lower emissions day-to-day. I think when I'm tracking my finances & gen advocacy in my MMM journal, I'll also start with tracking my carbon footprint and how even the smallest actions I make make a difference.