The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: OzzieandHarriet on September 08, 2019, 10:13:28 PM

Title: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 08, 2019, 10:13:28 PM
I read this piece today and agree with everything he says. Opinions?

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: bacchi on September 08, 2019, 10:53:38 PM
Oh, yeah, we're fucked.

It won't be a Mad Max situation but there will be food shortages even in the US and Canada. Brown outs, gas only available once a week, fewer choices of consumer goods -- life will change entirely in the next 75 years.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 08, 2019, 11:02:35 PM
In the gym we say that people overestimate possible changes in the short term, and underestimate possible changes in the long-term. I believe it's the same with climate change.

It's also the same with resource depletion which is as serious a problem to our Western lifestyle, but which nobody likes to talk about these days.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: ecchastang on September 09, 2019, 04:40:51 AM
Anyone who thinks we can stop what has already been set in motion is delusional.  First, the US is just 15% of global emissions.  Second, people like the "idea" of a carbon tax and not using fossil fuels, until they are laid off and until they have to pay double for the price of goods and services. The best thing we can do is prepare for the inevitable. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: the_gastropod on September 09, 2019, 06:23:24 AM
Anyone who thinks we can stop what has already been set in motion is delusional.  First, the US is just 15% of global emissions.  Second, people like the "idea" of a carbon tax and not using fossil fuels, until they are laid off and until they have to pay double for the price of goods and services. The best thing we can do is prepare for the inevitable.

Yes—the US is responsible for 15% of emissions and represents just 4% of the world population. That’s pretty disgusting.

While some awful climate effects are inevitable, continuing along the status quo only makes matters worse. We need to take our foot off the accelerator ASAP.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 09, 2019, 06:45:38 AM
Jared Diamond wrote a book called Collaps, which describes that advanced civilizations can collaps within a few decades. I think that will happen with most of the modernized world, as we are not taking climate changes seriously.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Fresh Bread on September 09, 2019, 06:53:05 AM
Anyone who thinks we can stop what has already been set in motion is delusional.  First, the US is just 15% of global emissions.  Second, people like the "idea" of a carbon tax and not using fossil fuels, until they are laid off and until they have to pay double for the price of goods and services. The best thing we can do is prepare for the inevitable.

Yes—the US is responsible for 15% of emissions and represents just 4% of the world population. That’s pretty disgusting.

While some awful climate effects are inevitable, continuing along the status quo only makes matters worse. We need to take our foot off the accelerator ASAP.

Totally agree. It's the difference between a temp rise of 1.5deg, 2deg or under BAU, 4deg or more which is total disaster, end of days stuff. And anyway, can you imagine the change in attitude required to make millions of refugees be welcome?

15% of the emissions is huge! What other country is responsible for such a percentage except China? It is absolutely imperative that the US act.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EvenSteven on September 09, 2019, 08:45:22 AM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: eljefe-speaks on September 09, 2019, 08:51:44 AM
My reaction: stop writing pieces for the New Yorker and give us a follow-up to Purity! The wait is killing me! lol
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 09, 2019, 11:55:38 AM
Yes—the US is responsible for 15% of emissions and represents just 4% of the world population. That’s pretty disgusting.

While some awful climate effects are inevitable, continuing along the status quo only makes matters worse. We need to take our foot off the accelerator ASAP.

One easy way to take your foot off the accelerator is to stop buying shit.

The US is directly responsible for 15% of emissions . . . but that number would be an awful lot higher if we calculated in all the stuff that is manufactured purely for US demand.  Just because you outsourced labor to countries without environmental protections doesn't mean all the pollution caused by your demand disappears.  Canada is exactly the same way (as is the UK).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on September 09, 2019, 12:01:25 PM
Yes—the US is responsible for 15% of emissions and represents just 4% of the world population. That’s pretty disgusting.

While some awful climate effects are inevitable, continuing along the status quo only makes matters worse. We need to take our foot off the accelerator ASAP.

One easy way to take your foot off the accelerator is to stop buying shit.

The US is directly responsible for 15% of emissions . . . but that number would be an awful lot higher if we calculated in all the stuff that is manufactured purely for US demand.  Just because you outsourced labor to countries without environmental protections doesn't mean all the pollution caused by your demand disappears.  Canada is exactly the same way (as is the UK).

But... but buying things = freedom(tm)!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 09, 2019, 12:11:51 PM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.



Isn’t the point of this piece that the huge effort isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen, so what CAN we do? I don’t think it’s fear-mongering but an attempt to be realistic.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: the_gastropod on September 09, 2019, 12:13:12 PM

One easy way to take your foot off the accelerator is to stop buying shit.

The US is directly responsible for 15% of emissions . . . but that number would be an awful lot higher if we calculated in all the stuff that is manufactured purely for US demand.  Just because you outsourced labor to countries without environmental protections doesn't mean all the pollution caused by your demand disappears.  Canada is exactly the same way (as is the UK).

Yea, no kidding. And then there's the scrap we ship to China for recycling. It’s amazing that our number is a whopping 15% before all the outsourcing we do. This is another reason the continued finger pointing at China and India is so frustrating. They have many times more people than the U.S., *and* they’re manufacturing and recycling our crap.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: ecchastang on September 09, 2019, 05:03:22 PM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.



Isn’t the point of this piece that the huge effort isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen, so what CAN we do? I don’t think it’s fear-mongering but an attempt to be realistic.
Exactly.  Realistically, humans will never come together in a meaningful way to clean up the mess we created.  Inevitably Nature will take care of it.  Should we stop polluting, producing and reproducing....certainly.  Will it happen....certainly not.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: eljefe-speaks on September 10, 2019, 07:22:49 AM
Half the country is powerless to do anything for the environment because it is more important to own the libs. Laura Ingraham closed an episode posing with incandescent light bulbs and plastic drinking straws inserted into a large steak. Take that libs!

I totally agree with Franzen. If this is where we are in 2019, we're fucked as a species.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: ecchastang on September 10, 2019, 07:33:53 AM
Half the country is powerless to do anything for the environment because it is more important to own the libs. Laura Ingraham closed an episode posing with incandescent light bulbs and plastic drinking straws inserted into a large steak. Take that libs!

I totally agree with Franzen. If this is where we are in 2019, we're fucked as a species.
And the other half pays mostly lip service to the issue without ever actually doing anything substantial.  I agree with your assessment of our species. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EvenSteven on September 10, 2019, 08:08:15 AM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.



Isn’t the point of this piece that the huge effort isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen, so what CAN we do? I don’t think it’s fear-mongering but an attempt to be realistic.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of the piece is, but the effect of the piece is to make the problem worse. If you think it is hopeless and nothing we can do will make anything better, then that might not matter to you one way or the other.

Who should I listen to, climatologists, or celebrity authors with no scientific training?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html?noredirect=on
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 10, 2019, 08:30:01 AM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.



Isn’t the point of this piece that the huge effort isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen, so what CAN we do? I don’t think it’s fear-mongering but an attempt to be realistic.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of the piece is, but the effect of the piece is to make the problem worse. If you think it is hopeless and nothing we can do will make anything better, then that might not matter to you one way or the other.

Who should I listen to, climatologists, or celebrity authors with no scientific training?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html?noredirect=on

But ... that WaPo piece is just more of the same “if we roll up our sleeves now and do what needs to be done we can solve this.” That was written two years ago, and if anything things are worse now from a political will standpoint. We’ve seen the US government falling more and more into a chaos that is hard to believe, including tearing down the few environmental policies that we did have in place.

Franzen is not saying we should do nothing but that we should be working to make the social fiber better in any way we can because if nothing else it will cushion the inevitable.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: StarBright on September 10, 2019, 08:35:22 AM
Half the country is powerless to do anything for the environment because it is more important to own the libs. Laura Ingraham closed an episode posing with incandescent light bulbs and plastic drinking straws inserted into a large steak. Take that libs!

I totally agree with Franzen. If this is where we are in 2019, we're fucked as a species.
And the other half pays mostly lip service to the issue without ever actually doing anything substantial.  I agree with your assessment of our species.

I don't know if that is entirely true though? I've been really lucky to recently live in/near two small towns (both in purple states) that have definite environmental missions as part of their governing goals. My current neighborhood has a neighborhood pollinator plan and three monarch way stations, and our town has a goal to be the most green in our state (and currently is, drawing over 40% of its power from renewables).

The town I lived before this one had more of a focus on water systems and public transportation instead of renewables, but both towns have been really impressive when it comes to environmental goals. If I can land in two of these places by accident, surely there are a lot of areas around the United States that aren't just paying lip service?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on September 10, 2019, 08:38:34 AM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.



Isn’t the point of this piece that the huge effort isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen, so what CAN we do? I don’t think it’s fear-mongering but an attempt to be realistic.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of the piece is, but the effect of the piece is to make the problem worse. If you think it is hopeless and nothing we can do will make anything better, then that might not matter to you one way or the other.

Who should I listen to, climatologists, or celebrity authors with no scientific training?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html?noredirect=on

Whenever I hear someone express the opinion that it's already too late I have to wonder what actions they're taking on a personal level. In other words, are they a realist who accepts that bad things are going to happen regardless and understands that "how bad" depends on our actions OR are they just making an excuse to not take any personal responsibility or make an effort to improve the situation.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Cool Friend on September 10, 2019, 08:52:22 AM
Jesus guys, read the article before assuming you already know what is being said in it.


Quote
. If collective action resulted in just one fewer devastating hurricane, just a few extra years of relative stability, it would be a goal worth pursuing.

In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong. Although the actions of one individual have zero effect on the climate, this doesn’t mean that they’re meaningless. Each of us has an ethical choice to make.


Quote
And then there’s the matter of hope. If your hope for the future depends on a wildly optimistic scenario, what will you do ten years from now, when the scenario becomes unworkable even in theory? Give up on the planet entirely? To borrow from the advice of financial planners, I might suggest a more balanced portfolio of hopes, some of them longer-term, most of them shorter. It’s fine to struggle against the constraints of human nature, hoping to mitigate the worst of what’s to come, but it’s just as important to fight smaller, more local battles that you have some realistic hope of winning.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: bacchi on September 10, 2019, 08:59:57 AM
Whenever I hear someone express the opinion that it's already too late I have to wonder what actions they're taking on a personal level. In other words, are they a realist who accepts that bad things are going to happen regardless and understands that "how bad" depends on our actions OR are they just making an excuse to not take any personal responsibility or make an effort to improve the situation.

Anyone reading the Franzen article should come to these paragraphs,

Quote from: franzen
First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees of warming, there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions.
[...]
In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong.

In the US, we're faced with a Senate that will be hard to flip. I'd love to see a Green New Deal but it will never pass. Perhaps the one good thing about Trump's actions are the budget precedent of moving money around -- take from the military, give to green projects.

The next President (Warren?) can reinstate CAFE and light bulb standards and power plant regulations but that's a drop in the bucket. It will take a sea change in the way we live our lives. Even getting everyone on 100% renewable power won't cut it if we're still buying shit from China made in factories powered by coal or if we're using our wealth to fly to exotic places.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on September 10, 2019, 09:18:30 AM
Whenever I hear someone express the opinion that it's already too late I have to wonder what actions they're taking on a personal level. In other words, are they a realist who accepts that bad things are going to happen regardless and understands that "how bad" depends on our actions OR are they just making an excuse to not take any personal responsibility or make an effort to improve the situation.

Anyone reading the Franzen article should come to these paragraphs,

Quote from: franzen
First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees of warming, there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions.
[...]
In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong.

In the US, we're faced with a Senate that will be hard to flip. I'd love to see a Green New Deal but it will never pass. Perhaps the one good thing about Trump's actions are the budget precedent of moving money around -- take from the military, give to green projects.

The next President (Warren?) can reinstate CAFE and light bulb standards and power plant regulations but that's a drop in the bucket. It will take a sea change in the way we live our lives. Even getting everyone on 100% renewable power won't cut it if we're still buying shit from China made in factories powered by coal or if we're using our wealth to fly to exotic places.

Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted where I did. My comment was in response to posters in this thread, not the article.

Edit: ya, that was confusing :) Should have quoted ecchastang
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: eljefe-speaks on September 10, 2019, 09:33:40 AM
Half the country is powerless to do anything for the environment because it is more important to own the libs. Laura Ingraham closed an episode posing with incandescent light bulbs and plastic drinking straws inserted into a large steak. Take that libs!

I totally agree with Franzen. If this is where we are in 2019, we're fucked as a species.
And the other half pays mostly lip service to the issue without ever actually doing anything substantial.  I agree with your assessment of our species.

The other half is far more likely to vote for climate policy and do what they can to help alleviate the problem. The Trump Party denies there is a problem and is openly hostile to any proposed solutions.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on September 10, 2019, 09:58:00 AM
Half the country is powerless to do anything for the environment because it is more important to own the libs. Laura Ingraham closed an episode posing with incandescent light bulbs and plastic drinking straws inserted into a large steak. Take that libs!

I totally agree with Franzen. If this is where we are in 2019, we're fucked as a species.

That image may make it into our children's textbooks.

Caption: Media personality mocks efforts to slow climate change. Mocking the science of climate change was a primary tactic of the political right until 20??
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 10, 2019, 09:58:55 AM
The fundamental problems associated with climate change haven't altered at all:

- Doing something to fix the problem now means more discomfort than doing nothing.  Because we didn't do anything significant while the problem was building, this discomfort is getting greater.
- There's a large scale and concerted effort to tell people that they don't need to worry.  Magical science will fix the problem.  You can't trust science, it's all opinion.  There's no problem anyway.  There's a small problem, but it's totally natural and will just go away.  Climatologists facts are as valid as oil barons opinions.
- There's no threat immediate enough to pull people's heads out of their asses

We're not quite in a doomsday scenario, yet but I see very little likelihood of us doing anything substantial to mediate the problem until we're well past one.  The first point above will continue to be a bigger and bigger driver in behaviour to block solutions, the second one will continue will continue to give people who don't want to think about it an easy way to ignore the growing threat.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Aelias on September 10, 2019, 11:02:01 AM
What I think the article adds to the current climate conversation is that, even when we're talking about the Green New Deal and massive renewable energy projects, we're actually thinking too narrowly about the impacts climate change will have on people's lives and, perhaps, overinvesting in cutting emissions as a result. 

As a bunch of people have already said--this does not mean cutting emissions is pointless.  But it does mean that  strengthening the social fabric of our communities, which will be essential if we want to prevent the wholesale collapse of society, is just as important.   And while limiting emissions sufficiently to slow the rising climate is largely outside of any individual's circle of control, taking small steps to building stronger communities is within everyone's grasp and not only makes the world more climate-resilient in the future, it make the world a better place right now.

Right now, anyone can commit to:

- checking in on their neighbors in extreme heat or other bad weather
- donating blood and supplies to organizations that respond to natural disasters
- supporting local agriculture / growing a garden
- donating coats and other cold weather clothes to a domestic violence or homeless shelter

To put it another way, we need to come to grips with the fact that life is probably going to get harder rather than easier, particularly for those who are vulnerable and marginalized already. What keeps people going in hard times are strong social bonds -- communities look out for each other, and individuals participate because they trust that if they fall on hard times, others will help them.  We should take opportunities now to care for those who are vulnerable, both individually and by building strong institutions.  Because, sooner than we think, we will all be more vulnerable. 

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on September 10, 2019, 12:28:48 PM
So, should I factor for a 4% withdrawal rate for my rice and bean stores or would a 3% rate be more prudent given current waistline inflation?

In all seriousness, does the information provided change anyone’s FIRE plans?  And if it does, what are you changing or planning for?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 10, 2019, 01:12:47 PM
So, should I factor for a 4% withdrawal rate for my rice and bean stores or would a 3% rate be more prudent given current waistline inflation?

In all seriousness, does the information provided change anyone’s FIRE plans?  And if it does, what are you changing or planning for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, my thoughts are: FIRE as soon as possible as long as society still is the way it is. If apocolypse starts in let's say 20 years from now, then I want to gave had a couple of nice, non-working years before the shit hits the fan. I also don't feel like becoming one of the few heavily armed survivors.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on September 10, 2019, 02:09:44 PM
Great article.

Quote
Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme measures taken to combat it. They can’t dismiss news they dislike as fake. They have to set aside nationalism and class and racial resentments. They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations and distant future generations.

I don't think this is as far-fetched as the author makes it out to be. He discusses tipping points in nature, but he fails to account for it in politics. Hopefully we reach critical mass sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on September 10, 2019, 02:43:50 PM
So, should I factor for a 4% withdrawal rate for my rice and bean stores or would a 3% rate be more prudent given current waistline inflation?

In all seriousness, does the information provided change anyone’s FIRE plans?  And if it does, what are you changing or planning for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, my thoughts are: FIRE as soon as possible as long as society still is the way it is. If apocolypse starts in let's say 20 years from now, then I want to gave had a couple of nice, non-working years before the shit hits the fan. I also don't feel like becoming one of the few heavily armed survivors.

So, “YOLO! I’m going to get hit by the climate bus anyway.” ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: CCCA on September 10, 2019, 03:38:13 PM
Global climate change is a huge problem that will need a huge effort to mitigate, but I don't think it's helpful to crank up the fear machine. Quote from the article:

Quote
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios in which collective action averts catastrophe.

Lol.


Yup, that quote is more than a bit ridiculous. 

We definitely need to policy changes and pricing changes if we are to mitigate GHG emissions.  Things can happen fairly quickly, IF the appropriate incentives are in place, or not at all if we keep the same structure we have now.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RangerOne on September 10, 2019, 04:40:02 PM
I mean at this point there is no proposed legislation will notably mitigate the course we are on. How bad will the global temperature be for life in 30, 50 or 100 years is still open to debate. Unchecked it will be bad its just not 100% clear if it apocalypse bad in 30 years or 100 years.

I think the best we can hope for is that over the next 50 years, improvements in green energy and carbon capture technology can start to not just mitigate but reverse some of the damage.

We are not getting out of this without some amount of technical wizardry. But I would have to think that 100 more years of technology, baring a total meltdown of all advanced countries, will start to yield some ability to do some impressive environmental engineering or borderline terraforming to get us back to an okay state. Obviously some things like species loss and the like probably can't be reversed, but how hard can cooling a planet be....
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 10, 2019, 05:00:47 PM
I think of the climate apocalypse as colonizing mars minus the space travel and low gravity.   Oh and 7B people appear at once.

Better learn how to terraform. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 10, 2019, 09:10:55 PM
The scientists say that preparing the world for the approaching climate changes is still mamy times easier than terraforming Mars. At least here you will always have air to breath and water.

I also don't understand Musk who wants to transport many people to Mars. Think of the climate impact all those rocket launches will have. I am always crinching when I see another rocket being launched.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 10, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
So, should I factor for a 4% withdrawal rate for my rice and bean stores or would a 3% rate be more prudent given current waistline inflation?

In all seriousness, does the information provided change anyone’s FIRE plans?  And if it does, what are you changing or planning for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, my thoughts are: FIRE as soon as possible as long as society still is the way it is. If apocolypse starts in let's say 20 years from now, then I want to gave had a couple of nice, non-working years before the shit hits the fan. I also don't feel like becoming one of the few heavily armed survivors.

So, “YOLO! I’m going to get hit by the climate bus anyway.” ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A little bit, but we don't know when it will happen. We might have 40 years of good life left. So we better have our FIRE number high enough. But there is no reason to OMY after you reach your number.

I also don't intend to travel the world and uses lots of airplanes while we still can. I will rather try to live low impact.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: waltworks on September 10, 2019, 09:21:12 PM
We've already made the choice that we're going to geoengineer (on could argue we already have, by adding all that CO2 to the atmosphere). Might as well start getting serious about it. I personally think we're clever enough to solve the problem, but I guess we'll find out.

-W
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on September 10, 2019, 09:54:47 PM
I also look at this from a slightly different perspective:

If we move from coal fired power stations to renewables, then those who currently live near coal fired power stations will have improved air quality and we should benefit from a more robust distributed generation system.

If we move to electric transport then the air quality of our cities will be improved overnight.

If our manufacturing uses less greenhouse gases then our air quality will again improve.

These things are worth doing whether we stop global warming or not.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 10, 2019, 10:07:55 PM
I mean at this point there is no proposed legislation will notably mitigate the course we are on.

Actually there is. Look up the US Congress's current House Resolution 763, the Energy Independence and Carbon Dividend Act. Better yet, urge your Congressional Representative to cosponsor it, and your Senators to file a companion bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763

I saw an awesome dashboard a couple weeks ago that integrates the 20 or so biggest climate input factors identified by IPCC, starts with the best estimate available of their impact, and provides slider controls that allow you to modify each input yourself to calculate the overall temperature increase estimated for the end of the century. IIRC correctly the initial estimate was about 8 degrees Celsius of increase. The most impactful slider was the one for passing legislation comparable to the Carbon Dividend Act. By itself (if, I assume, similar legislation goes worldwide...but if the the US passes it, it's possible the rest of the world will get there too) this one factor would reduce the increase by about 3 degrees C.

The second most powerful slider was the one for technology impact. If it goes to the high end instead of the medium one, AND the Climate Dividend Act is passed, the temp in year 2100 drops 5 degrees C instead of 3 degrees. If the bill were to pass this year, carbon emissions would according the model we saw actually begin decreasing in the middle 2020s. So passing this one bill gives us a shot at preventing more than half of the potential temperature increase.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on September 10, 2019, 10:33:24 PM
The scientists say that preparing the world for the approaching climate changes is still mamy times easier than terraforming Mars. At least here you will always have air to breath and water.

I also don't understand Musk who wants to transport many people to Mars. Think of the climate impact all those rocket launches will have. I am always crinching when I see another rocket being launched.
A single Falcon 9 launch burns about the same fuel as four 737s going maximum range. There are almost 40 million commercial passenger flights per year versus around 20 Falcon 9 launches per year. Being generous with assumptions on average aircraft size and distance flown, that means the global commercial passenger industry outputs as much CO2 every 3 minutes as all F9 launches in a year. For the all global space launches, the number is probably considerably less than 15 minutes of comparable average commercial passenger aviation emissions.

Terraforming Mars is for suckers--would be much easier to build and live in space tubes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDlSORhI-k). The sun outputs enough energy to support life in artificial habitats with a total surface area on the order of a billion times the surface area of the earth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on September 10, 2019, 11:03:33 PM
I mean at this point there is no proposed legislation will notably mitigate the course we are on.

Actually there is. Look up the US Congress's current House Resolution 763, the Energy Independence and Carbon Dividend Act. Better yet, urge your Congressional Representative to cosponsor it, and your Senators to file a companion bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763

I saw an awesome dashboard a couple weeks ago that integrates the 20 or so biggest climate input factors identified by IPCC, starts with the best estimate available of their impact, and provides slider controls that allow you to modify each input yourself to calculate the overall temperature increase estimated for the end of the century. IIRC correctly the initial estimate was about 8 degrees Celsius of increase. The most impactful slider was the one for passing legislation comparable to the Carbon Dividend Act. By itself (if, I assume, similar legislation goes worldwide...but if the the US passes it, it's possible the rest of the world will get there too) this one factor would reduce the increase by about 3 degrees C.

The second most powerful slider was the one for technology impact. If it goes to the high end instead of the medium one, AND the Climate Dividend Act is passed, the temp in year 2100 drops 5 degrees C instead of 3 degrees. If the bill were to pass this year, carbon emissions would according the model we saw actually begin decreasing in the middle 2020s. So passing this one bill gives us a shot at preventing more than half of the potential temperature increase.
This bill is far too reasonable to ever pass; the mere fact of its existence is making me question if I'm actually in some wine-induced feverish dream. The Republicans will hate it because (even if you don't write it on the tin) a tax is a tax and global warming is a lie. Many Democrats will not like it because it explicitly recognizes the power of pricing and incentives to drive massive behavioral changes (old Bernie will be confused: how can this work if it doesn't impose a million bans and a million subsidies?).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on September 11, 2019, 04:33:01 AM
There’s a prisoner’s dilemma here, for nations as a whole.

Best course: emit or don’t emit.

Scenario 1: other countries are emitting
Best course: emit.

Scenario 2: other countries aren’t emitting
Best course: emit.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 11, 2019, 07:47:21 AM
The notorious Lord Monckton comes from Scotland, which will benefit from climate change, which he knows. Canada, Russia and North Europe will all benefit from the rising temperatures, which these regions know.

People in the tropics will suffer from climate change, and if a billion people die in thirty years from climate crop failure,our species will still continue. It is important to understand that.

The situation now is the reverse of the situation 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth and caused an asteroid winter, as dust and ash reduced the sun's heat reaching the land. The tropics became temperate, and all dinosaurs weighing more than 35 kg died. Crocodiles are reptiles, not dinosaurs, and did well as starving animals came to rivers to drink. Crocs are good survivors, particularly as they can survive for a few weeks between meals, being cold blooded.

Our near future is the reverse. Tropics will not be the place to live, and colder region such as Canada and Northern Europe wheat will move north  European wheat will be grown as tropical countries lose food production. Plants stop de production when temperatures exceed about 35C.

So the idea that our species - for all our failures - will become extinct is absurd. Near the end of the movie Titanic, people in a lifeboat discussed whether they should try try and pick up people floating in life jackets in very cold water, and the consensus was that they did not need to be overwhelmed by 'refugees' from cold water swamping lifeboats.

The same policies apply today.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Cool Friend on September 11, 2019, 08:11:23 AM
The species ultimately surviving isn't much of a consolation to me in light of the widespread death and suffering that will take place, because it was avoidable and "we" chose to do nothing instead.  That it's possible, perhaps likely, that the species will survive is another excuse for those with wealth and power to continue to do nothing.  They'll live, after all.  No big deal if billions die unnecessarily.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 11, 2019, 08:22:13 AM
So the idea that our species - for all our failures - will become extinct is absurd.

I don't believe that anyone is saying that. Our species will not go extinct (although plenty of others will). Our way of life will go extinct.

Near the end of the movie Titanic, people in a lifeboat discussed whether they should try try and pick up people floating in life jackets in very cold water, and the consensus was that they did not need to be overwhelmed by 'refugees' from cold water swamping lifeboats. The same policies apply today.

Yes, but this time around:
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 11, 2019, 08:30:38 AM
This bill is far too reasonable to ever pass...

You may be correct on this one.

The Republicans will hate it because (even if you don't write it on the tin) a tax is a tax and global warming is a lie.

Sadly, here too.

Many Democrats will not like it because it explicitly recognizes the power of pricing and incentives to drive massive behavioral changes (old Bernie will be confused: how can this work if it doesn't impose a million bans and a million subsidies?).

Some will wring their hands, but do you really think that it wouldn't get the votes to pass? Especially since it opens up the door to a whole new funding model for public works.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 11, 2019, 08:35:51 AM
I mean at this point there is no proposed legislation will notably mitigate the course we are on.

Actually there is. Look up the US Congress's current House Resolution 763, the Energy Independence and Carbon Dividend Act. Better yet, urge your Congressional Representative to cosponsor it, and your Senators to file a companion bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763

I saw an awesome dashboard a couple weeks ago that integrates the 20 or so biggest climate input factors identified by IPCC, starts with the best estimate available of their impact, and provides slider controls that allow you to modify each input yourself to calculate the overall temperature increase estimated for the end of the century. IIRC correctly the initial estimate was about 8 degrees Celsius of increase. The most impactful slider was the one for passing legislation comparable to the Carbon Dividend Act. By itself (if, I assume, similar legislation goes worldwide...but if the the US passes it, it's possible the rest of the world will get there too) this one factor would reduce the increase by about 3 degrees C.

The second most powerful slider was the one for technology impact. If it goes to the high end instead of the medium one, AND the Climate Dividend Act is passed, the temp in year 2100 drops 5 degrees C instead of 3 degrees. If the bill were to pass this year, carbon emissions would according the model we saw actually begin decreasing in the middle 2020s. So passing this one bill gives us a shot at preventing more than half of the potential temperature increase.
This bill is far too reasonable to ever pass; the mere fact of its existence is making me question if I'm actually in some wine-induced feverish dream. The Republicans will hate it because (even if you don't write it on the tin) a tax is a tax and global warming is a lie. Many Democrats will not like it because it explicitly recognizes the power of pricing and incentives to drive massive behavioral changes (old Bernie will be confused: how can this work if it doesn't impose a million bans and a million subsidies?).

LOL re wine-induced feverish dream. Very enjoyable writing!

I remember at work one time we were soberly doing a Very Important Project based on energy prices. Gasoline prices in the US had recently rocketed from $2 and 2.50 per gallon to $3.50 and $4, depending on the day and the state. Someone mentioned that while we were assuming that prices would rise in the future, perhaps we should include the possibility of lower ones in our model too. Project Manager rolled his eyes and stated firmly "We'll never see prices below $4 again." He was never a PM again after that project.

Maybe political deadlock is as solid as fuel prices were. It's worth pushing for a worthy bill to pass, I think.

If you're a US citizen looking for scripts and how-to, or would be willing to put in a consistent 10 minutes per month toward preventing climate apocolypse, Citizens Climate Lobby has a page that gives you the contact info for your representatives based on your address, plus a script to use in calling their office. Afterward, if you accept, they will send prompts every month or so summarazing key actions of that sort which can be taken in a few minutes.

Contact Your Representative page:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-about-the-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/#/54/

Overall site (group is international, I just gave US info because I'm in the US)
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

PS. CCL drafted the bill. It has several dozen cosponsors already. Passage in 2019 is unlikely IMHO but pushing for it is a useful step towards passage in 2021. By getting involved, you shift from passive consumer of grim headlines to active creator of a better world. Taking action on at least one headline or issue per month will change your relationship to "the news" forever. #MustacheStrong #StoicWins  :)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 11, 2019, 09:29:53 AM
Articles in the Washington Post today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-world/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/09/11/six-takeaways-posts-analysis-globes-fastest-warming-areas/?arc404=true
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on September 11, 2019, 10:23:59 AM
So, should I factor for a 4% withdrawal rate for my rice and bean stores or would a 3% rate be more prudent given current waistline inflation?

In all seriousness, does the information provided change anyone’s FIRE plans?  And if it does, what are you changing or planning for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, my thoughts are: FIRE as soon as possible as long as society still is the way it is. If apocolypse starts in let's say 20 years from now, then I want to gave had a couple of nice, non-working years before the shit hits the fan. I also don't feel like becoming one of the few heavily armed survivors.

So, “YOLO! I’m going to get hit by the climate bus anyway.” ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A little bit, but we don't know when it will happen. We might have 40 years of good life left. So we better have our FIRE number high enough. But there is no reason to OMY after you reach your number.

I also don't intend to travel the world and uses lots of airplanes while we still can. I will rather try to live low impact.

Ok - so maybe you adjusted your FIRE number up to be more conservative.  Risks of inflated food prices, etc.   

So for planning purposes to anyone else.  If you adjust your FIRE number, have you also adjusted your asset allocation? More hard assets, like real estate, land, etc and less paper assets?  And I guess I’m asking specifically if anyone changed because of this risk.  I own plenty of real estate in areas that may see financial benefit due to climate change, but that’s not why I own it. 

Basically, if what the article describes actually happens in your lifetime, what can you do personally to mitigate your risk?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Villanelle on September 11, 2019, 12:31:32 PM
I'm glad I don't have kids.  I still care about plenty of people and it's not as though I'm all, "fuck planet earth; I only need it for a handful more decades!".   But I suspect I'd care heartbreakingly more about my own flesh and blood.  I look at my friends with kids, and who are still producing friends (one is probably in labor as I type this!) and it seems like the biggest act of unfounded optimism one could ever commit.   Maybe their kids will be the ones who fix things, or drag us back from the brink of Really Bad Shit, or who build the silos and related support systems in which humans will live in the future. Or who will solve the science necessary to colonize Mars.  One can hope.  But I marvel at the unanchored courage it takes to create another human who will live through whatever is to come, or whose children will live through it (or worse yet, not live through it).  Maybe it will all be fine, and I suspect that is what is required for so many people to keep creating future humans.  The ostrich that buries his head in the sand sometimes does survive.  (Fun fact: ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand, but they do lay on the ground and let their heads and necks blend into the color of the dirt.)

Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 11, 2019, 12:37:51 PM
Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

Except for the ones that were unwarranted. Plenty of kids died in plagues, pandemics, and WWII.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on September 11, 2019, 01:10:02 PM
I'm glad I don't have kids.  I still care about plenty of people and it's not as though I'm all, "fuck planet earth; I only need it for a handful more decades!".   But I suspect I'd care heartbreakingly more about my own flesh and blood.  I look at my friends with kids, and who are still producing friends (one is probably in labor as I type this!) and it seems like the biggest act of unfounded optimism one could ever commit.   Maybe their kids will be the ones who fix things, or drag us back from the brink of Really Bad Shit, or who build the silos and related support systems in which humans will live in the future. Or who will solve the science necessary to colonize Mars.  One can hope.  But I marvel at the unanchored courage it takes to create another human who will live through whatever is to come, or whose children will live through it (or worse yet, not live through it).  Maybe it will all be fine, and I suspect that is what is required for so many people to keep creating future humans.  The ostrich that buries his head in the sand sometimes does survive.  (Fun fact: ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand, but they do lay on the ground and let their heads and necks blend into the color of the dirt.)

Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

I completely agree. My younger stepdaughter has two toddlers, and I just look at them and think, God, things are going to get really bad during your lifetime. My older stepdaughter just got married, and I know they want kids, and I on purpose make sure to never say anything about climate change in their presence because they aren’t dumb, they know it’s gonna happen, and for some crazy reason they still plan to procreate. I don’t want to hurt my or her father’s relationship with them so I say nothing even though I cannot imaging how they can contemplate children when the next hundred years will likely see so much suffering and very possibly societal breakdown.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Villanelle on September 11, 2019, 01:27:16 PM
Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

Except for the ones that were unwarranted. Plenty of kids died in plagues, pandemics, and WWII.
Sure.  But individual death is a risk that has always existed, and will always exist.  It's a bit different than societal death.  Or put another way, it (and all the examples I mentioned) are terrible things happening to lots of people, but things from which society and the planet and humankind recovered.  The flu pandemic may have wiped out a very significant portion of the world's population, and surely caused a great deal of sorrow for a great many people, but then it ended.  As did both world wars.  So it wasn't unwarranted (in hindsight) optimism at the future of the planet and humanity.  This time, it may be (or it may not be). 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 11, 2019, 01:31:05 PM
Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

Except for the ones that were unwarranted. Plenty of kids died in plagues, pandemics, and WWII.
Sure.  But individual death is a risk that has always existed, and will always exist.  It's a bit different than societal death.  Or put another way, it (and all the examples I mentioned) are terrible things happening to lots of people, but things from which society and the planet and humankind recovered.  The flu pandemic may have wiped out a very significant portion of the world's population, and surely caused a great deal of sorrow for a great many people, but then it ended.  As did both world wars.  So it wasn't unwarranted (in hindsight) optimism at the future of the planet and humanity.  This time, it may be (or it may not be).

Individual death has always existed.  But the risk of individual death was radically different when the flu pandemic was wiping out most of europe than it was in the 1960s.  As an individual, that's of some concern to me . . . because while it's nice to think that the human race will survive, it's not significant comfort when you're writhing in agony.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 11, 2019, 03:32:49 PM
...I marvel at the unanchored courage it takes to create another human who will live through whatever is to come, or whose children will live through it (or worse yet, not live through it).  Maybe it will all be fine, and I suspect that is what is required for so many people to keep creating future humans.  The ostrich that buries his head in the sand sometimes does survive.  (Fun fact: ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand, but they do lay on the ground and let their heads and necks blend into the color of the dirt.)

Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

I like the balanced approach you take in considering the feeling of existential risk in the past, compared to humanity's survival in those situations. And I acknowledge that the climate crisis is a big one that requires stronger action than we've been doing. Yet I wonder about the unanchored part.

Apparently there are cognitive biases we have as humans, and the nature of news media has amplified those in ways that distort our view of the world. Sorry if you've seen me post this elsewhere, but here is a video by an author of apocalyptic books who studied this phenomenon and concluded things are much better than he'd thought. Now he claims we are on track to likely vast progress, not disaster. He admits the environment is an issue and he will be called an obstacle. Consider the data backing up his claims and compare it to the news. Is optimism truly unanchored?

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_is_the_world_getting_better_or_worse_a_look_at_the_numbers?language=en

My personal guess is that we-the-human-race are likely to improve average quality of life during most or all generations of this century, with climate change the biggest of the problems we will be grappling with and mitigating throughout this time. Probably ecosystem preservation and preservation of nature's species diversity is a close second in terms of ensuring our own survival, but that's not getting as much press lately as the climate. We do need success on both fronts to secure our future.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 11, 2019, 03:44:58 PM
Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

Except for the ones that were unwarranted. Plenty of kids died in plagues, pandemics, and WWII.
Sure.  But individual death is a risk that has always existed, and will always exist.  It's a bit different than societal death.  Or put another way, it (and all the examples I mentioned) are terrible things happening to lots of people, but things from which society and the planet and humankind recovered.  The flu pandemic may have wiped out a very significant portion of the world's population, and surely caused a great deal of sorrow for a great many people, but then it ended.  As did both world wars.  So it wasn't unwarranted (in hindsight) optimism at the future of the planet and humanity.  This time, it may be (or it may not be).

You are entitled to your own opinion on this matter. From my point of view, if you were a Native American after the discovery of the new world, or a Black Sea German or European Jew during the first half of the 20th century, a Scot during the Highland Clearances, an African during colonization, etc, your life would have been radically changed if you were lucky enough to keep it. If you were lucky enough to keep your life you might well think that your society was destroyed.

Will the human race survive? Sure. Will we all like it? Maybe. Will all societies survive? Almost certainly not.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 11, 2019, 07:29:40 PM
I cannot imaging how they can contemplate children when the next hundred years will likely see so much suffering and very possibly societal breakdown.
By this reasoning, nobody in Syria should have had children in 1995. Nobody in Bosnia should have had children in 1975. Nobody in Vietnam should have had children in 1950. Nobody in Europe in 1920. Or 1900. Or in China in 1920, or 1900. Or Russia in 1895. And so on.

The world has always had disasters and conflicts and revolutions. We don't have children because the world is perfect, we have children so that they can grow up and perfect the world.

A sensible parent will try to equip their child the best they can for the difficulties they think they'll face in coming years. Traits like honesty, compassion, patience, frugality and so on are useful in good times and essential in bad times. The only difference with this particular issue is that in coming years we are not likely to need many MBAs, Diversity Managers, Set Intimacy Co-ordinators, social media influencers, stockbrokers and so on. But we will need craftspeople, medical professionals, farmers, and decent people. So we encourage them to more essential careers than bullshit jobs. Well, that's probably a good thing to do whatever the future holds.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: madgeylou on September 11, 2019, 07:53:42 PM
I cannot imaging how they can contemplate children when the next hundred years will likely see so much suffering and very possibly societal breakdown.
By this reasoning, nobody in Syria should have had children in 1995. Nobody in Bosnia should have had children in 1975. Nobody in Vietnam should have had children in 1950. Nobody in Europe in 1920. Or 1900. Or in China in 1920, or 1900. Or Russia in 1895. And so on.

The world has always had disasters and conflicts and revolutions. We don't have children because the world is perfect, we have children so that they can grow up and perfect the world.

Right, but there's also the fact that a growing population in places like the US means increasing carbon emissions. So having kids not just about having hope for the future -- it's also adding to the problem.   
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Villanelle on September 11, 2019, 07:56:01 PM
I cannot imaging how they can contemplate children when the next hundred years will likely see so much suffering and very possibly societal breakdown.
By this reasoning, nobody in Syria should have had children in 1995. Nobody in Bosnia should have had children in 1975. Nobody in Vietnam should have had children in 1950. Nobody in Europe in 1920. Or 1900. Or in China in 1920, or 1900. Or Russia in 1895. And so on.

The world has always had disasters and conflicts and revolutions. We don't have children because the world is perfect, we have children so that they can grow up and perfect the world.

A sensible parent will try to equip their child the best they can for the difficulties they think they'll face in coming years. Traits like honesty, compassion, patience, frugality and so on are useful in good times and essential in bad times. The only difference with this particular issue is that in coming years we are not likely to need many MBAs, Diversity Managers, Set Intimacy Co-ordinators, social media influencers, stockbrokers and so on. But we will need craftspeople, medical professionals, farmers, and decent people. So we encourage them to more essential careers than bullshit jobs. Well, that's probably a good thing to do whatever the future holds.

No.  I'm not saying, "bad things are happening so people shouldn't have kids".  (I'm making no call at all an who should or should not have kids, nor why they might or might not do so.)  Nor am I saying that I'm surprised people have kids in the middle of bad things.  That's precisely why I brought up WWII and the flu epidemic.  If you'd like to add Syria et al. to that list, great.  They fit quite well there.  Those are things that were catastrophic for those directly affected.  But there was little reason to believe the world was ending.  The Syrian conflict is absolutely devastating fot those affected, but there was no reason, as far as I can tell, to think that it might bring down all of humankind or make much of our planet uninhabitable and lead to the breakdown of society in every way that might make it even remotely recognizable.

Those crises were existential for specific families, or specific countries perhaps.  I'm not downplaying the terror and horror of that.  But I don't think there was general doubt that humankind would go on, or that all of society would breakdown.

There are certainly people who think that is what differentiates this crisis from the ones you mention.  That the change might be unrecoverable.  The humans are doomed, or that society as we know it will devolve into something else entirely.  It's certainly reasonable to believe that this ship will be righted with no more suffering and catastrophe than all those other catastrophes.  If you think that's the case, I can see why you'd equate them.  But my point is that I can see the argument that this may well not be like any of those things in that earth won't recover.  And in light of that, for those who believe it (and I'm not sure whether or not I'm one of them), having a child seems like a strange (and I don't mean that in a judgemental way) choice.  Like a beautiful Hail Mary of reckless hope. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on September 11, 2019, 08:15:28 PM
I cannot imaging how they can contemplate children when the next hundred years will likely see so much suffering and very possibly societal breakdown.
By this reasoning, nobody in Syria should have had children in 1995. Nobody in Bosnia should have had children in 1975. Nobody in Vietnam should have had children in 1950. Nobody in Europe in 1920. Or 1900. Or in China in 1920, or 1900. Or Russia in 1895. And so on.

The world has always had disasters and conflicts and revolutions. We don't have children because the world is perfect, we have children so that they can grow up and perfect the world.

A sensible parent will try to equip their child the best they can for the difficulties they think they'll face in coming years. Traits like honesty, compassion, patience, frugality and so on are useful in good times and essential in bad times. The only difference with this particular issue is that in coming years we are not likely to need many MBAs, Diversity Managers, Set Intimacy Co-ordinators, social media influencers, stockbrokers and so on. But we will need craftspeople, medical professionals, farmers, and decent people. So we encourage them to more essential careers than bullshit jobs. Well, that's probably a good thing to do whatever the future holds.

No.  I'm not saying, "bad things are happening so people shouldn't have kids".  (I'm making no call at all an who should or should not have kids, nor why they might or might not do so.)  Nor am I saying that I'm surprised people have kids in the middle of bad things.  That's precisely why I brought up WWII and the flu epidemic.  If you'd like to add Syria et al. to that list, great.  They fit quite well there.  Those are things that were catastrophic for those directly affected.  But there was little reason to believe the world was ending.  The Syrian conflict is absolutely devastating fot those affected, but there was no reason, as far as I can tell, to think that it might bring down all of humankind or make much of our planet uninhabitable and lead to the breakdown of society in every way that might make it even remotely recognizable.

Those crises were existential for specific families, or specific countries perhaps.  I'm not downplaying the terror and horror of that.  But I don't think there was general doubt that humankind would go on, or that all of society would breakdown.

There are certainly people who think that is what differentiates this crisis from the ones you mention.  That the change might be unrecoverable.  The humans are doomed, or that society as we know it will devolve into something else entirely.  It's certainly reasonable to believe that this ship will be righted with no more suffering and catastrophe than all those other catastrophes.  If you think that's the case, I can see why you'd equate them.  But my point is that I can see the argument that this may well not be like any of those things in that earth won't recover.  And in light of that, for those who believe it (and I'm not sure whether or not I'm one of them), having a child seems like a strange (and I don't mean that in a judgemental way) choice.  Like a beautiful Hail Mary of reckless hope.

Exactly.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 11, 2019, 08:49:18 PM
I feel like some people here are not really comprehending that this is not going to be the same as a localized natural disaster or a war or an epidemic. It’s a change in the way the entire planet’s ecosystem works and will affect everyone. Even the people who think their money will save them are not going to have the comfy bunker existence (or whatever) they think they will have.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 11, 2019, 09:01:52 PM
What should we do about it?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 11, 2019, 09:22:03 PM
What should we do about it?

Use alternate energy sources.    This will encourage their development.

Boycott goods and services that are carbon intensive.  This will discourage their ongoing use.

Vote against politicians who encourage poor environmental practices.

Heck, plant a tree.


Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on September 11, 2019, 09:57:43 PM
Of course, those who had babies during the nuclear arms race, or WWII, or the world's various plagues and pandemics, all probably required similar optimism, which turned out to be warranted.

Except for the ones that were unwarranted. Plenty of kids died in plagues, pandemics, and WWII.
Let's just look back to the start of the 20th century by decade for existential threats--what do we see?

1900s: :)
1910s: WW1, flu pandemic [might be stretching it a little to call these "existential"]
1920s: :)
1930s: Great Depression, Fascism
1940s: WW2
1950s: Cold War
1960s: Cold War
1970s: Cold War, stagflation [the latter being more of a cherry on top]
1980s: Cold War [but tapering off]
1990s: :) [yay, the end of history!]
2000s: Global Warming
2010s: Global Warming
2020s: Carly Rae Jepsen releases her next studio album Disco Sweat

Looks like we spend more time than not with a looming existential threat hanging over our heads. Yes, people died or suffered in various catastrophes but most people were just fine. What I don't understand is when pessimism reaches the level of "oh I would never have children in such a terrible world", how is that not far from "I should just kill myself"? If you can't imagine other lives worth living in the world, wouldn't it be somewhat contradictory to regard your own as worthwhile?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on September 11, 2019, 10:00:52 PM
What should we do about it?

Use alternate energy sources.    This will encourage their development.

Boycott goods and services that are carbon intensive.  This will discourage their ongoing use.

Vote against politicians who encourage poor environmental practices.

Heck, plant a tree.

Not sure this answers the question when looking from the context of the article.  It’s basically making the argument that we’re already fucked.  Maybe everyone goes renewable and plants a tree over the next 20 years.  Still fucked, just less fucked, or fucked a little further out.

Not sure anyone has come up with any risk mitigation here.  Especially not as it would relate to someone personally who plans on retiring early.  Maybe you use a more conservative withdrawal rate.  Buy some farmland in Minnesota.  Make your house incredibly energy efficient.  Have a big garden.  Plant trees around your home for shade.  Live near a large body of freshwater.

I know I haven’t planned on those things.  Maybe I should.  Maybe I’m already in a good position.

But I’ve been asking the same questions.  Based on the context of the article, what can or are you doing about it? Not asking rhetorically.  I’d like to hear some ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 12, 2019, 12:38:25 AM

Right, but there's also the fact that a growing population in places like the US means increasing carbon emissions. So having kids not just about having hope for the future -- it's also adding to the problem.

Halve your personal emissions. Double your family size. No addition to the problem. Better still, drop consumption by 75%, double your family size, halve your impact.

It is unclear why people imagine their consumption is unchangeable. If you can contemplate something as great a change in lifestyle as having or not having children, I don't see why you can't contemplate changing your consumption patterns.

Quote from: Villanelle
There are certainly people who think that is what differentiates this crisis from the ones you mention.  That the change might be unrecoverable.

It is characteristic of every age that they imagine that soon everything will change catastrophically, and that this particular change is greater in magnitude than any other. This is a measure of how absurd people's current level of consumption is, that any change to it can only be imagined as apocalyptic.

Certainly, our current civilisation will collapse. All civilisations collapse as they outrun their resource base. But this is a process of centuries. Now, this process will certainly be uncomfortable, and just as certainly painful. There will be misery and death. But it will not be an order of magnitude greater than any other misery and death we've inflicted on ourselves. More likely is things simply gradually turning shitty. First World countries will, over decades, become like Second World countries - well-developed urban centres surrounded by slums with regular brownouts, a strict rule of law with many exceptions for the privileged and those with the money to bribe, generally poor infrastructure for the general public, that sort of thing. The drop in population won't, generally speaking, be from mass famine or disease, but from decaying health and sanitation infrastructure and increasing substance abuse. Fewer drug addicts will get revived, more people who can't afford chemotherapy won't get it, more people living in slums won't get a diptheria vaccination, that sort of thing. It doesn't take much to take us back to 1900 or so for most of the population.


For example, Australia's current birth rate is 13.8 per 1,000 people, and death rate 7.6, leaving us with a 6.2/1,000 growth rate absent migration effects. In 1950 the death rate was 15 per 1,000, in 1907 it was 25. We don't need to hit the Stone Age for a decline to set in, but it's a gradual decline. Going to a 1907 death rate and leaving the birth rate unchanged would take Australia from 25 to 8 million people in 100 years. That's a big change, but year-on-year it's not huge, and we're not seeing people drop dead in the streets.

This article is worth reading.
https://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf (https://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf)


and this review of the longer book version of the article,
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2008-08-31/review-long-descent-john-michael-greer/

and of course the book itself
https://www.bookdepository.com/Long-Descent-John-Michael-Greer/9780865716094
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 12, 2019, 01:49:43 AM
So, should I factor for a 4% withdrawal rate for my rice and bean stores or would a 3% rate be more prudent given current waistline inflation?

In all seriousness, does the information provided change anyone’s FIRE plans?  And if it does, what are you changing or planning for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, my thoughts are: FIRE as soon as possible as long as society still is the way it is. If apocalypse starts in let's say 20 years from now, then I want to have had a couple of nice, non-working years before the shit hits the fan. I also don't feel like becoming one of the few heavily armed survivors.

So, “YOLO! I’m going to get hit by the climate bus anyway.” ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A little bit, but we don't know when it will happen. We might have 40 years of good life left. So we better have our FIRE number high enough. But there is no reason to OMY after you reach your number.

I also don't intend to travel the world and uses lots of airplanes while we still can. I will rather try to live low impact.

Ok - so maybe you adjusted your FIRE number up to be more conservative.  Risks of inflated food prices, etc.   

So for planning purposes to anyone else.  If you adjust your FIRE number, have you also adjusted your asset allocation? More hard assets, like real estate, land, etc and less paper assets?  And I guess I’m asking specifically if anyone changed because of this risk.  I own plenty of real estate in areas that may see financial benefit due to climate change, but that’s not why I own it. 

Basically, if what the article describes actually happens in your lifetime, what can you do personally to mitigate your risk?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would personally not invest in real estate in places that I expect to suffer from higher sea levels or mud slides in the near future. But no, I don't take any other steps. I think the world will be as it is for another decade or so, so the stock markets might just do fine for the mean time. At least, I'm taking that risk.

We do plan to get our next house in a place where we can catch some food, like fish in the sea and being able to grow stuff in the garden. I am also thinking about solar panels or some other form of clean energy. Also with access to fire wood and clean drinking water. But as said, I might not want to be one of the last survivors in a world that gets ugly. I would not like to have to defend my home grown potatoes with weaponry.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 12, 2019, 05:12:19 AM
I feel like some people here are not really comprehending that this is not going to be the same as a localized natural disaster or a war or an epidemic. It’s a change in the way the entire planet’s ecosystem works and will affect everyone. Even the people who think their money will save them are not going to have the comfy bunker existence (or whatever) they think they will have.
Quite.

"The Paris Agreement (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2015), which came into force on 4 November 2016, states the importance of keeping global temperature change below 2°C, ideally at 1.5°C. However, it is projected that the combined global temperature increase would rise up to 2.6–3.1°C, if only the given commitments outlined in States’ submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are implemented. Such temperature increase would affect the health of millions of people and threaten the habitability and survivability in hot areas of the world.
• Habitability can be defined as the “capability for sustained occupation by people in the environment of the local area”, and survivability can be “the ability to remain alive or continue to exist in the environment of the local area”.
• The expansion of super-hot areas in parts of the world is one of the major public health threats that climate change brings, and it also leads to labour productivity loss. In these conditions, the continuation of daily life activities in hot tropical and subtropical parts of the world – where most of the global population lives – is threatened. "

"Even in the best-case scenario of the lowest possible temperature increase, millions of people will potentially be unable to maintain daily life activities during hot periods of each year in their areas of origin in low- and middle-income countries and also in developed countries."

"If nothing is done in terms of climate change mitigation, more than 1 billion people are projected to live in “very strong heat stress” by the end of this century."

http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/mecc_infosheet_heat_and_migration.pdf
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 12, 2019, 05:41:46 AM
I also heard a TED talk for about a year ago that based on population growth only, there will not be enough food (calories) in the world to feed the entire population. And the presenter was talking about 10 years from that moment. Then we will also have a major problem. This was however a workable problem, but it had to be worked on immediately.

So there are so many things that will contribute to an apocalypse situation. I just also think that money can't save you forever, maybe just a bit in the beginning.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 12, 2019, 07:30:52 AM
Just saw this ... FWIW ...

https://www.facebook.com/908009612563863/posts/3000671316631005?sfns=mo
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 12, 2019, 10:47:31 AM
What should we do about it?

Use alternate energy sources.    This will encourage their development.

Boycott goods and services that are carbon intensive.  This will discourage their ongoing use.

Vote against politicians who encourage poor environmental practices.

Heck, plant a tree.

Not sure this answers the question when looking from the context of the article.  It’s basically making the argument that we’re already fucked.  Maybe everyone goes renewable and plants a tree over the next 20 years.  Still fucked, just less fucked, or fucked a little further out.

Not sure anyone has come up with any risk mitigation here.  Especially not as it would relate to someone personally who plans on retiring early.  Maybe you use a more conservative withdrawal rate.  Buy some farmland in Minnesota.  Make your house incredibly energy efficient.  Have a big garden.  Plant trees around your home for shade.  Live near a large body of freshwater.

I know I haven’t planned on those things.  Maybe I should.  Maybe I’m already in a good position.

But I’ve been asking the same questions.  Based on the context of the article, what can or are you doing about it? Not asking rhetorically.  I’d like to hear some ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ideas for personal risk mitigation, which is what it sounds like you want:
-All the ones you gave
-All the ones @scottish gave
-Build community connections (shared resources are more efficient now, reducing the problem; they are great for surviving emergencies. Not perfect, but great)
-Choose diversified portfolio options
-Develop skills (cooking, that garden, bicycling, repair skills. Health skills, like the last video suggested), especially ones that work if there's a grid breakdown
-Develop a low-driving lifestyle

(I have done most of the above except move and develop wide skills. Probably not going to move. Researched my city's water plans and concluded they'll work during my lifetime)

Ideas for addressing the problem on a wider scale (I think this is super important...the crisis can be Mostly Solved or Mostly Allowed To Happen, the difference between options is huge.)
-Yes, lobby Congress. See post upthread about the Carbond Dividend Act. (For convenience: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/ and click the "Write A Letter" button)
-Work with others (local groups, political groups, community farming groups, Citizens Climate Lobby, Extinction Rebellion, Sierra Club, etc)
-Lobby state, local, regional officials. Find groups with climate plans for your area and support them
-Politics. Mobilization counts. Volunteer and donate to candidate campaigns or party development.
-Donate to groups that circulate real info about the problem and work on solutions (Union of Concerned Scientists, etc)
-Donate to groups that support govt whistleblowers (Government Accountability Project, Transparency International)

I have done most of the above, and am continuing with them while working towards the rest. It's OK to focus, I just will end up covering the whole public service list if my personal Angel of Death leaves me be for a while.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 12, 2019, 11:36:14 AM
Here’s a picture of what’s to come if nothing is done:

https://time.com/longform/jacobabad-extreme-heat/
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: slow hand slow plan on September 12, 2019, 12:56:13 PM
Ye of little faith.... Be the change you want to see. Waste less, use less, and vote. There will be a time coming "soon" when green energy will be cheaper than carbon based emissions. As soon as we reach a tipping point like that everything will start to change. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 12, 2019, 08:30:55 PM
If you're good with social media, then you can start a campaign to ostracize people who drive c!own cars, live in mcmansions and carry out other activities that exacerbate climate change.   (Especially coal rollers who really annoy me for some reason)


@OzzieandHarriet    who will do something if not the average person?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 13, 2019, 12:14:22 AM
I do use my voting right to vote "green" whenever I have the chance. I want to encourage you all to vote on the greenest party or candidate that you have available.

Appropos jobs that someone mentioned. No, we don't need more "bullshit" whitecollar jobs. But apart from the trades, we need lots of technical engineers en scientists. My DH thinks climate chance might be mitigated if all the smartest people in the world were put together to develop nuclear fusion in the near future.

And about getting children... When I was younger we had the thread of a nuclear war and I was glad that we didn't put children on the world. Now it is climate change and I am still glad I didn't put children on the world. I also don't understand why other people are still so optimistic, or more probably in total denial about climate change. I am by far the most pessimistic person in my circle of friends, familie and coworkers. Me and the climate experts, and the cook from the cafetaria at work. The rest is just continueing as if nothing is happening. Even though climate has been noticeable in Norway too. Farmers are in trouble because of unpredictable draughts and heavy rains, we have more mud slices than earlier, 200 year floods form rivers are now happing every other year or so. At least the land is still rising since the last ice age.

Thanks for this thread that shows I am not the only one with this depressing world view of the future.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on September 13, 2019, 12:55:47 AM
I feel like some people here are not really comprehending that this is not going to be the same as a localized natural disaster or a war or an epidemic. It’s a change in the way the entire planet’s ecosystem works and will affect everyone. Even the people who think their money will save them are not going to have the comfy bunker existence (or whatever) they think they will have.

But will global warming affect me more than, say, that hurricane just affected the Bahamas? Probably not, right? I suspect the individual variation in luck/circumstance is still going to play a bigger role over the next X years than global warming.

Frankly, even if there are global shockwaves, would it reach those of us safe in first world nations? To an extent, maybe. To an existential extent, the same way that cancer or a speeding bullet might? Probably not.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 13, 2019, 02:04:10 AM
I feel like some people here are not really comprehending that this is not going to be the same as a localized natural disaster or a war or an epidemic. It’s a change in the way the entire planet’s ecosystem works and will affect everyone. Even the people who think their money will save them are not going to have the comfy bunker existence (or whatever) they think they will have.

But will global warming affect me more than, say, that hurricane just affected the Bahamas? Probably not, right? I suspect the individual variation in luck/circumstance is still going to play a bigger role over the next X years than global warming.

Frankly, even if there are global shockwaves, would it reach those of us safe in first world nations? To an extent, maybe. To an existential extent, the same way that cancer or a speeding bullet might? Probably not.
Exactly where do you think the one billion people whose lands will be made unliveable by climate change are going to want to go?  And how many pieces of paper, or bombs and bullets, do you think will keep them from trying to survive by going to the places where it is still possible to live?  If the State you live in becomes unliveable because of extreme heat or complete lack of drinking water or seawater inundation, what would stop you from moving to somewhere you can still survive?

Enquiring minds want to know.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on September 13, 2019, 02:31:13 AM
"Exactly where do you think the one billion people whose lands will be made unliveable by climate change are going to want to go?"

I don't know where they will want to go, but I am fairly certain that my first world country will not end up with 1 billion refugees. I otherwise wish them well.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 13, 2019, 05:45:03 AM
"Exactly where do you think the one billion people whose lands will be made unliveable by climate change are going to want to go?"

I don't know where they will want to go, but I am fairly certain that my first world country will not end up with 1 billion refugees.
How many do you think it will end up with?  And how will that number be determined?


I otherwise wish them well.
Perhaps they'll just die where they are, comforted by that thought.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on September 13, 2019, 06:35:35 AM
The number will be determined by our migration laws, which to date, work.

I'm not Gandhi. I'm not here to save the world. I'm here to be financially responsible. The only difference between me and the average person is that I'm financially responsible.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: TrudgingAlong on September 13, 2019, 08:00:35 AM
Interesting. Since you are in Australia, do you not have concern over the death of the Great Barrier Reef or lack of water in areas they grow food? Australia seems pretty vulnerable to climate change in those ways. It’s not all about invading immigrants.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 13, 2019, 08:08:57 AM
Interesting. Since you are in Australia, do you not have concern over the death of the Great Barrier Reef or lack of water in areas they grow food? Australia seems pretty vulnerable to climate change in those ways. It’s not all about invading immigrants.

Bloop Bloop subscribes to the 'fuck everyone else, I've got mine' philosophy of life.  So if he's starving or burning to death due to the effects of climate change he'll just happily lose his life without trying to bother anyone else - safe in the knowledge that he's being logically consistent.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Aelias on September 13, 2019, 08:46:23 AM
I’ll chime in as a person who thinks climate change is real, that life is definitely going to get harder in the next hundred years or so because of climate change, and who nevertheless has children – 2 young sons and another daughter on the way.

For me, part of it has been acknowledging that having children is selfish.  It doesn’t make sense to argue that I had my children for their sake – if they had never been born, they would be no worse off, they simply wouldn’t be.  But I would be immeasurably worse off.  I chose to have children because I wanted them, my husband and I have the means to care for them, and they are constantly challenging me to be a better person.   That is inherently selfish, and I own that.

The next part is acknowledging that having children is risky.  Suffering is a part of every life, and bringing life into the world means you will necessarily subject that person to suffering, and sooner or later it will be horrible suffering.  The older I get, the more I am reminded that children die painful, senseless, pointless deaths all the time—car accidents, cancer, drownings—and no amount of privilege or parental diligence can shield them from simple bad luck.  And the truth is that climate change is going to mean more suffering and deprivation for everyone, and that includes my own children.

Those two facts would seem to strongly support the argument against having children.  But I think the second one—the intractable and growing problem of suffering—actually cuts both ways.  Because the only thing that has ever alleviated suffering is the help of other humans.   And if we accept the premise that the human race is going to continue into the future, at least in the short term,  we’ll need humans who are willing to help each other.  But, if the only people willing to have children are either climate change deniers or “I got mine – fuck you” nihilists, then the future’s going to be very miserable indeed.

I’m not saying anyone is obligated to have kids or that the arguments against having kids are not valid.   But those who do want to have kids for their own selfish reasons should do so with the knowledge that those children are going to have a very different and probably more difficult life than they themselves have enjoyed thus far. So, those parents should try to prepare their kids for a difficult future as best they can by trying to instill those values that contribute to a more livable future—empathy, frugality, resilience, generosity, avoidance of waste, and a good work ethic. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 13, 2019, 09:36:50 AM
my husband and I have the means to care for them
Actually, no, you don't have the means to care for them.  You have the money to care for them, which is different from having the means.  There aren't enough Earths to support the people on this one: it's a less than zero sum game at the moment and your children are taking more than even their fair share of the insufficient resources available.

Yes, it's possible that technology will solve the resource problems.  But right now that's a gamble on sometime in the future.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Aelias on September 13, 2019, 10:01:58 AM
It's a fair point, @former player.  We certainly have neither the means nor the money to insulate them from every impact of climate change; I would argue that literally no one does.  And you're right that by living in a first world country, our kids are using up more than their fair share of the world's resources, despite our efforts to minimize our impact which are considerable.

But, I am operating on the assumption that the human race will continue in at least the short term. I am doing my best to raise my kids to contribute to alleviating the suffering around them.  I think there's a valid argument for not having kids at all.  But I don't think that's the only ethical choice.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 13, 2019, 10:46:34 AM
I feel like some people here are not really comprehending that this is not going to be the same as a localized natural disaster or a war or an epidemic. It’s a change in the way the entire planet’s ecosystem works and will affect everyone. Even the people who think their money will save them are not going to have the comfy bunker existence (or whatever) they think they will have.

But will global warming affect me more than, say, that hurricane just affected the Bahamas? Probably not, right?

@Bloop Bloop, global warming will almost certainly affect you in Australia (or wherever you live) more than a hurricane in the Bahamas. It will affect everyone, which the Bahamas will not, and the effects are diverse enough that all of us have some risk.


Frankly, even if there are global shockwaves, would it reach those of us safe in first world nations? To an extent, maybe. To an existential extent, the same way that cancer or a speeding bullet might? Probably not.

Maybe so, though.

Areas expected to suffer "reductions in projected food availability" according to IPCC (turgid report below) include "central Europe", which is a prosperous enough area that I think any person in a First World country should realize the we too are vulnerable. "Reductions in projected food availability" means "not enough food for dinner." That's existential...maybe not fast acting, like a bullet, but existential like cancer.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf

Until further notice, there is no "safe in First World nations." At best, there is "at risk until stronger climate action is taken, though someone else will get hungry before I do".
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on September 13, 2019, 11:41:50 AM
Here’s something that I can’t reconcile.  According to the UN, fully 1/3 of food for human consumption is wasted. 

So, at current levels, we are way outproducing current population levels. Even if we have food output drop by 33% due to climate change, we’d still have the same food standard of living as today, assuming no waste.  I can see if we have a 33% drop in food production, and a 33% population increase, we’d be in for a good hurting.

But to me, it still seems like there is a lot of wiggle room, considering that not even all land that could be productive for crops is being used for crops.  I mean, it’s estimated that 2% of US land is used for grass. That’s a lot of potential calories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Villanelle on September 13, 2019, 11:45:55 AM
The number will be determined by our migration laws, which to date, work.

I'm not Gandhi. I'm not here to save the world. I'm here to be financially responsible. The only difference between me and the average person is that I'm financially responsible.

And when the government can't provide enough food and shelter for it's citizens are they still going to enforce those rules?  Are they not going to rise up in protest and hunger?  Joined by a horde of desperate immigrants?

When people in the middle of your island are literally roasting to death, their homes no longer inhabitable (and the power grid no longer reliable enough to stave off lethal temperature changes? 

Even if you subscribe to "fuck you I've got mine and my country needs only protect its own citizens",  there are places on the planet that currently have significant populations and are becoming uninhabitable***, and un-farmable. And Australia doesn't seem immune to that. That means displacement even among your own citizens.    (***e.g., https://time.com/longform/jacobabad-extreme-heat/ (https://time.com/longform/jacobabad-extreme-heat/))

When wlidfires fires turn your country into a burning hellscape, and there's not enough food because New Zealand and others have their own issues and can no longer be net exporters, and people in Adelaide are dying in 50*C plus heat and hours long black-outs, and coastal cities and their population and industry are underwater? 

Having a solid immigration policy seems very unlikely to prevent instability.  Or, in many cases, death. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 13, 2019, 12:15:44 PM
According to the UN, fully 1/3 of food for human consumption is wasted. 

But where is that food wastage? Feel free to point me at sources, but something tells me that substance farmers in Togo aren't letting a third of their crop rot.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: slow hand slow plan on September 13, 2019, 12:51:32 PM
my husband and I have the means to care for them
Actually, no, you don't have the means to care for them.  You have the money to care for them, which is different from having the means.  There aren't enough Earths to support the people on this one: it's a less than zero sum game at the moment and your children are taking more than even their fair share of the insufficient resources available.

Yes, it's possible that technology will solve the resource problems.  But right now that's a gamble on sometime in the future.

If you do not think there is enough resources than why dont you fall on the knife instead of ripping on anyone who has kids? The future has always been uncertain and there is always a risk of catastrophe . Do you tell your parents that they messed up by having kids too?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 13, 2019, 12:56:39 PM
If you do not think there is enough resources than why dont you fall on the knife instead of ripping on anyone who has kids?

If this conversation is too upsetting for you perhaps a more constructive mechanism to deal with it would be to just not participate? former player and Aelias seem to be getting on just fine.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: slow hand slow plan on September 13, 2019, 01:13:19 PM
If you do not think there is enough resources than why dont you fall on the knife instead of ripping on anyone who has kids?

If this conversation is too upsetting for you perhaps a more constructive mechanism to deal with it would be to just not participate? former player and Aelias seem to be getting on just fine.

Thanks for the "warning/advise " I will make sure to stay out of every disagreement even if it is filled with hypocrisy
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 13, 2019, 01:29:17 PM
If you do not think there is enough resources than why dont you fall on the knife instead of ripping on anyone who has kids?

If this conversation is too upsetting for you perhaps a more constructive mechanism to deal with it would be to just not participate? former player and Aelias seem to be getting on just fine.

Thanks for the "warning/advise " I will make sure to stay out of every disagreement even if it is filled with hypocrisy
Where's the hypocrisy?  My parents had me (and my brother, for completeness neither of us has chosen to procreate) long before global warming and climate change had even been thought of - I remember a book in the 1970s worried about a new ice age.  I'm not expecting Aelias, or anyone else, to go all Medea on her kids either.

But the conversation is an important one: there are no free passes for any of us now and raising your kids to be nice is great but not a solution to the essential problem: too many humans, using too many resources and changing the planet in ways that will make human life more and more difficult, raising to impossible, in increasingly large areas of the world and which will leave none of us unaffected.

Actually, I'm probably old enough and rich enough and in a safe enough location not to have to face the worst of it.  But I tread as lightly as I can on the planet because it's the right thing to do.  And maybe help to clarify the issues along the way.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: erutio on September 13, 2019, 01:39:28 PM
I'm not ripping having kids, I have 2 young kids myself.

And obviously, once you have kids, you can't get rid of them.  But having one less future kid is the single most impactful act one could do to combat climate change.

If my wife and I have a third kid, we would be adopting.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on September 13, 2019, 01:53:39 PM
According to the UN, fully 1/3 of food for human consumption is wasted. 

But where is that food wastage? Feel free to point me at sources, but something tells me that substance farmers in Togo aren't letting a third of their crop rot.
I’m no expert.  I’m only quoting the inter webs. Thought this was interesting, though:

https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2011/13-food-produced-human-consumption-wasted/77396

“One-third of the food produced for human consumption winds up lost or wasted globally, about 1.3 billion tons a year, according to a study by the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK). The UN supported the study titled “Global Food Loses and Food Waste.” Although the amount of food lost or wasted annually is almost equal in industrialized countries (222 million tons) and developing countries (230 million tons), over 40 percent of waste in industrialized countries occurs at retail and consumer levels. In developing countries, food loss occurs during post-harvest and processing stages of the food supply chain (FSC), but very little is wasted.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Aelias on September 13, 2019, 02:11:47 PM
For whatever it's worth, I'm not at all offended by @former player 's responses or anyone else's.  It's an important issue.  It inspires passionate debate and disagreement.  Of course it does.

I'm also not asking for or expecting anyone to validate my choices.  I thought I'd put it out there as another perspective for consideration, and I tried to do so in the most constructive way possible. 

I also think that part of the reason the article that inspired this thread resonated with me is because it takes a broader view on what it means to be prepared for the inevitability of climate change. I also noted that many people described it as "optimistic", probably foolishly so, to have children know what we know.  I don't really consider myself to be an optimist, especially on this issue.  But I also tend to think social goods and social bonds are undervalued and technological solutions are overvalued.  I think it's possible to look at raising the next generation as an investment in social good and in the future livability of the planet.  Clearly a minority opinion, at least judging by the response thus far.  But one that I think is of a piece with the article cited by the OP.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 13, 2019, 02:26:41 PM
I'm not ripping having kids, I have 2 young kids myself.

And obviously, once you have kids, you can't get rid of them.

Well you can, but it's often frowned upon.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: erutio on September 13, 2019, 02:43:15 PM
But I also tend to think social goods and social bonds are undervalued and technological solutions are overvalued.  I think it's possible to look at raising the next generation as an investment in social good and in the future livability of the planet.  Clearly a minority opinion, at least judging by the response thus far.  But one that I think is of a piece with the article cited by the OP.

I think this is a very valid point, thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 13, 2019, 04:32:21 PM
"Exactly where do you think the one billion people whose lands will be made unliveable by climate change are going to want to go?"

I don't know where they will want to go, but I am fairly certain that my first world country will not end up with 1 billion refugees. I otherwise wish them well.

I just wanted to take the time to point out that if you open the awesome link that former player posted that a lot of these refugees will be coming from Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India are nuclear armed states, and Australia is not. If the developed world fails to allow for an organized climate refugee plan you may well not like the disorganized approach.

EDITed to add: not that Australia will be prime real estate once we see 3ºC of temperature rise.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 13, 2019, 04:43:01 PM
I don't have kids, but if I were otherwise ready to have them, I wouldn't avoid it due to climate change.

I bet if a parent is really concerned, they plant enough trees to compensate for the carbon that their kids' lifestyle produces.

Much respect to all parents on this thread. Their children, along with everyone else's, will be implementing solutions long after we're gone. Even if just to be kind to the other animals and remedy some of our current destruction, responsibly reared children are needed.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 13, 2019, 05:09:08 PM
It's my engineering background,  but I think it'll be really interesting to see which problems are solved and how...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on September 13, 2019, 05:20:04 PM
The number will be determined by our migration laws, which to date, work.

I'm not Gandhi. I'm not here to save the world. I'm here to be financially responsible. The only difference between me and the average person is that I'm financially responsible.

And when the government can't provide enough food and shelter for it's citizens are they still going to enforce those rules?  Are they not going to rise up in protest and hunger?  Joined by a horde of desperate immigrants?

When people in the middle of your island are literally roasting to death, their homes no longer inhabitable (and the power grid no longer reliable enough to stave off lethal temperature changes? 

Even if you subscribe to "fuck you I've got mine and my country needs only protect its own citizens",  there are places on the planet that currently have significant populations and are becoming uninhabitable***, and un-farmable. And Australia doesn't seem immune to that. That means displacement even among your own citizens.    (***e.g., https://time.com/longform/jacobabad-extreme-heat/ (https://time.com/longform/jacobabad-extreme-heat/))

When wlidfires fires turn your country into a burning hellscape, and there's not enough food because New Zealand and others have their own issues and can no longer be net exporters, and people in Adelaide are dying in 50*C plus heat and hours long black-outs, and coastal cities and their population and industry are underwater? 

Having a solid immigration policy seems very unlikely to prevent instability.  Or, in many cases, death.

I don't see this happening. For people in my city to be sweltering, roasting to death etc, there'd be a lot of cities (most of the American Southwest, Phoenix, Las Vegas, half of Florida) that would go first. And if I know anything about human nature, it's that when faced with existential threats to first world countries, we suddenly tend to take them seriously. In fact I think within about 5 years climate change will in fact be taken seriously, if not already now. There is no runaway apocalypse here. The earth is self-levelling, even if all of humankind is not. I may be wrong - but people thought that the nuclear arms race, AIDS, all that stuff would lead to devastation and now AIDS has been cured. Or something.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 13, 2019, 07:06:42 PM

I also heard a TED talk for about a year ago that based on population growth only, there will not be enough food (calories) in the world to feed the entire population. And the presenter was talking about 10 years from that moment.

Was the TED talk 10 years ago? Because that's the sort of prediction that's been tossed around for a long time.


Quote from: Papa Bear
“One-third of the food produced for human consumption winds up lost or wasted globally, about 1.3 billion tons a year, according to a study by the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK). The UN supported the study titled “Global Food Loses and Food Waste.” Although the amount of food lost or wasted annually is almost equal in industrialized countries (222 million tons) and developing countries (230 million tons), over 40 percent of waste in industrialized countries occurs at retail and consumer levels. In developing countries, food loss occurs during post-harvest and processing stages of the food supply chain (FSC), but very little is wasted.”
In the West, food is wasted at the wholesale/retail level, where wonky-shaped apples are rejected, that sort of thing, and at the household level, where for too many the salad drawer in the fridge is the place where healthy eating dreams go to die and rot.

Here in the West we do things like pick apples when unripe, treat them with 1-methylcyclopropene (which slows their ripening, it's also used to keep cut flowers going) and store them in a huge refrigerated warehouse with depleted oxygen and increased nitrogen to slow ripening, so they can be stored for over a year before sale. And they are transported around in refrigerated trucks. Meanwhile that subsistence farmer in Togo manages to grow 10% more sorghum than his family needs this year, puts it in some clay jars and rats get in and eat the lot.

In this respect, resource depletion - particularly of fossil fuels - is more of a threat to global food production and Western lifestyles than climate change. While our fossil fuel lifestyle has caused a huge loss of topsoil (endless monocropping depletes the soil, combine harvesters compact it, pesticides kill helpful bacteria etc), those same fossil fuels can also make up for our stupid landcare practices (natural gas is used to make fertiliser), and also by-the-by make some pretty marginal land - like the drier parts of India and Africa - productive.

If you reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, then those tractors and combine harvesters have to be replaced by oxen with ploughs and men with hoes. A tractor can plough 120 acres in a day. An ox or horse can plough it in one day. One man can plough it in 12 days. This is how we go from 25% of the population in the West engaged in farming in 1900 to less than 2% today, and a good number of them only managing by massive government subsidies. As fossil fuels decline, a lot of people will have to leave their airconditioned office, roll up their sleeves and start digging and hoeing.

And obviously, without cheap fossil fuels we don't have oxygen-depleted refrigerated warehouses, and planes flying romaine lettuce out to NYC in the winter. The age of the 3,000 mile caesar salad is passing. This does not mean famine, but it does mean our casual attitude to food consumption will have to change. At the moment, most people don't even know what foods are seasonal - how many readers know what grows locally and when? - but they'll learn over time.

As for global famine, I'm sceptical. Certainly, much food in the West is wasted, and much in the Third World is lost. World grain production is, the FAO says (http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/), 2,708 million tonnes. Current world population is 7.53 billion. That's 359kg of grain per person. There are 3,780kCal in 1kg of grain, so that 359kg per person annually equates to 3,724kCal daily each. Even if one-third is wasted/lost (and it's mostly not grain that's wasted and lost, it's fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy), that's still 2,400kCal daily per person.

However, of world grain production around 36% is given to livestock. It's 70% in the US. And 9% goes to biofuels. Which is to say that even without considering waste and loss, we only directly eat 55% of the world's grain production, the rest we consume indirectly in meat and dairy, and by burning it in vehicles. Put another way, we could basically halve world grain production and still eat as much grain as we do now, just much less meat and dairy.

So we're not looking at famine, we're looking at big changes in how and what we eat. Australians eat about 110kg of meat per person annually. (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption)) There are some exceptions like PNG and Greenland, but generally speaking, large meat consumption is basically a sign of being in a Western or First World country. It goes with massive energy consumption.

This need not be so.

There may not actually be enough fossil fuels for us to burn to give us the worst possible effects of climate change. There's certainly not enough oil and gas, coal's the uncertain one, there's actually quite a lot of it, but getting it involves some pretty nasty and polluting practices, like coal seam gasification, etc. But nobody's really sure about the feedbacks with the carbon cycle, there are some negative feedbacks like ocean acidification (kills coral reef and fish, but absorbs carbon which would otherwise go to the atmosphere) and some positive feedbacks like Siberian peat thawing. We just don't know.

Anyway, as old Arnie says, climate change or not, the things we need to do for it are good things to do anyway. I wrote about this ten years ago, the last time we were ten years away from global famine and destruction.

https://www.bicyclefixation.com/howto.html (https://www.bicyclefixation.com/howto.html)


The first point addresses both climate change and resource depletion, and of course local pollution. #2 drops your power bills. #3 and #4 reduce your transport costs. #4 improves your physical health, as do #5 and #6. #7 and #8 save you money. #9 gives you a nice day out with the family, conversations with curious neighbours, reduces noise pollution on your street, moderates the ambient temperature (that article on the Pakistani city mentioned how planting trees made the local climate less insane), slows down traffic in that street, increases property values, and so on.


The things which we as individuals and households can do to reduce our impact on climate change are all good things to do for a bunch of other reasons, too. Less doom, more action.


Humanity is not doomed. That any change to our wasteful consumerist lifestyle is interpreted as an "apocalypse" is merely our excuse not to take the actions we think necessary. It's not an apocalypse, it's just a big change. A change which you plan to make is much less painful than one forced upon you by circumstances. South Carolina plantation owners who manumitted their slaves in 1860 would, I think, have had more comfortable lives than those who had them all just walk away while the Union troops looted the house in 1865.


I pause now to allow people to make excuses and continue spouting "doom!"

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 13, 2019, 07:41:23 PM
In this respect, resource depletion - particularly of fossil fuels - is more of a threat to global food production and Western lifestyles than climate change. While our fossil fuel lifestyle has caused a huge loss of topsoil (endless monocropping depletes the soil, combine harvesters compact it, pesticides kill helpful bacteria etc), those same fossil fuels can also make up for our stupid landcare practices (natural gas is used to make fertiliser), and also by-the-by make some pretty marginal land - like the drier parts of India and Africa - productive.

You missed underground aquifer depletion, which will only exacerbate climate change related drought. If you want to read about glacier delpetion you can do so here (http://www.fao.org/3/i2096e/i2096e.pdf).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 13, 2019, 08:22:27 PM

  • 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.
  • Use cool drinks and fans not airconditioning, jumpers and hot drinks not heating, hang washing out to dry, change to CFLs, and pull plugs out on appliances not in use
  • Don't fly in aircraft at all.
  • Bye-bye cars: for a journey under 5km, walk. Under 15km, bike. Over that, public transport.
  • Consume mainly fresh fruit and vegies, grains and legumes, avoid processed containerised food
  • reduce meat consumption to under 12kg/year (0.25kg/week)
  • For consumer goods, borrow rather than buy, secondhand rather than new
  • If available, use coppiced wood for heating/cooking, otherwise use that wind powered electricity, or if that's not available, use natural gas
  • Plant trees--don't pay someone else, plant them where you can watch them and know they'll be cared for.

The first point addresses both climate change and resource depletion, and of course local pollution. #2 drops your power bills. #3 and #4 reduce your transport costs. #4 improves your physical health, as do #5 and #6. #7 and #8 save you money. #9 gives you a nice day out with the family, conversations with curious neighbours, reduces noise pollution on your street, moderates the ambient temperature (that article on the Pakistani city mentioned how planting trees made the local climate less insane), slows down traffic in that street, increases property values, and so on.

The things which we as individuals and households can do to reduce our impact on climate change are all good things to do for a bunch of other reasons, too. Less doom, more action.


Now that's an action list!!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 13, 2019, 09:56:06 PM
You missed underground aquifer depletion, which will only exacerbate climate change related drought. If you want to read about glacier delpetion you can do so here (http://www.fao.org/3/i2096e/i2096e.pdf).
I said, "resource depletion - particularly fossil fuels." Water's a resource.

In principle, if energy were no obstacle, we'd have plenty of fresh water by means of desalination, and other resources wouldn't be a problem, either. Given their historically massive energy return on energy invested compared to every other energy source, fossil fuels are the limiting factor in our civilisation's current lifestyle. It's quite possible something else will run short first - for example, if Musk gets his wish of 500,000 electric vehicles a year, just his company by itself will use the world's entire current production of lithium - but fossil fuels are a definite limit on everything else.

And of course, there may be some other limit in things we can't predict. I read an interesting article about the extinct Tasmanian Tiger (a marsupial carnivore) pointing out Tasmanian Devils have this horrible contagious cancer wiping them out, and that in the past the Tiger used to keep the Devil population low and in isolated groups, which prevented diseases spreading across the whole population. The Devil could not really anticipate its need for the Tiger, but there it is. Nature is full of little cycles where you remove one little element and the whole system collapses. For all we know the destruction of coral reefs will lead to a collapse in tuna stocks or algae blooms, for example, by breaking the link in some predation chain.

That's all unknowable at this stage. There are definitely things to be concerned about and watch, of course. But what we do know is that fossil fuels are the big cog in the machinery of Western society, once you remove that cog the machine won't work the same way. And there is not much we can do in our own lives to reduce our impact on aquifers or lithium stocks or whatever, but there's a lot we can do to reduce our overall use of fossil fuels. See the action list above. First, deal with the problems you can deal with.

Even if climate change were not real and burning coal gave us vitamin C, we'd have to transition away from fossil fuels, simply because they're finite; in principle most other resources can be reused indefinitely (and many like lead from lead acid batteries already are reused quite a lot), but fossil fuels once burned are gone forever. This means a lower energy consumption, more localised lifestyle, churning through less stuff. This is not necessarily a bad thing, what's bad is changing because we have to rather than we choose to, and the political and social chaos which inevitably results from involuntary change.


Of course, depletion leads to people getting desperate. It's no coincidence that the Carter Doctrine came about a few years after the peak of conventional oil production in the US, and not before. And as production becomes constrained, disruptions to its flow become a very effective means of waging war, both on the direct target and the countries the target supplies with oil. Thus the attack on Saudi Arabia today, written about here (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-14/drone-attacks-on-saudi-arabia-biggest-oil-facilities-fires/11513728). We can expect more and more state and non-state actors doing things like this. And the essential problem is that oil prices under USD75 a barrel destroy oil companies, and prices over USD75/bbl destroy economies. This is why US shale oil has been heavily subsidised with loans despite almost never turning a profit, and why the GFC was preceded by high oil prices.

Ironically, events like the attack on Saudi Aramco's facility, the largest crude oil stabilisation facility in the world, will only make us dependent on oil for longer, since governments and corporations will put any reduction in supply down to events like this, and say, "well, it's only temporary so we don't have to change anything." Don't look for effective action from governments, though corporations will be slightly more responsible since they are better able to look 10+ years ahead. Not all, of course, thus the GFC. But some.

Nonetheless, the most effective action has to come from us. Collapse now and avoid the rush. Start living a lifestyle with less fossil fuels, so that once it becomes compulsory you're used to it, and can pass on useful skills to friends, family and your community.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 15, 2019, 09:16:43 PM
Some posters have made remarks about Australia, presumably after seeing news items about our bushfires. Australia is about the same size as the US, but is mostly dry, and partly desert. Latitudes range from 12 degrees south for Darwin, to 42 degrees south for Hobart, Tasmania. The latitude of Hobart is about the same as for New York.

Most Australians live near the coast, and to the south of the continent. Climate change will increase the number of very hot days in the south, but most of the time the climate will be good. One solution is to build houses with walls a metre thick, for thermal mass, perhaps brick walls, connected by some steel reinforcing rods, the gap being filled with dry sand or gravel. The house interior will follow the yearly average temperature, thus insulating against extreme hot days.

Much of Africa is a vast upland, so cooler than the lower coastal regions. There are uplands in India and south east Asia. Finding somewhere to live in a hotter world is not hard, but the problem is finding crop growing land. Plant growth slows at temperatures above about 35C, about 95F.

I have been to Indonesia, which is very near the equator, and Indonesia has a steam bath climate, and will presumably get worse in the future.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 15, 2019, 09:30:57 PM
PDX, reply 98, raised the possibility of India invading Australia, and added that India is a nuclear armed state. Australia is huge, but too dry to support  most of India, as Indian planners will know. The invasion force will need an industrial effort much greater than the D Day cross Channel invasion, and it is unlikely that India will set off atomic bombs over land that they want to settle in.

Most farmland in the future will be away from the equator, that is where rich countries are. One possibility is that in a warming world, rich countries will feed everyone else in the world, to the best of their ability. Rich countries might just give grain to the likes of India, on the understanding that India does what is needed to reduce its birth rate a lot.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 15, 2019, 10:10:34 PM
PDX, reply 98, raised the possibility of India invading Australia, and added that India is a nuclear armed state. Australia is huge, but too dry to support  most of India, as Indian planners will know. The invasion force will need an industrial effort much greater than the D Day cross Channel invasion, and it is unlikely that India will set off atomic bombs over land that they want to settle in.

I was very clear that with 3C of warming Australia would not be a great place to farm. I was attempting to point out to someone that lives in a nice comfortable developed country that once India and Pakistan hit 46C+ all bets are off. The developed world better have a damn good plan for climate refugees or something really nasty could happen.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on September 15, 2019, 10:25:00 PM
I'm sure we could give them some foreign aid to help them resettle.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 16, 2019, 12:20:29 AM
I'm sure we could give them some foreign aid to help them resettle.

Where?  Nauru?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on September 16, 2019, 02:27:16 AM
Nauru? Nairu? Nimby?

It's all the same to me.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 16, 2019, 05:35:11 AM
Invaders can have everything north of the Murray so far as I'm concerned. Unless they're American invaders, then we just have to fight them.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 16, 2019, 08:45:02 AM
Maybe the kids will do something about it.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/science/most-american-teens-are-frightened-by-climate-change-poll-finds-and-about-1-in-4-are-taking-action/2019/09/15/1936da1c-d639-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on September 16, 2019, 07:14:44 PM
Invaders can have everything north of the Murray so far as I'm concerned. Unless they're American invaders, then we just have to fight them.

I think that view would be common amongst those from the southern states.

But seriously, there will be big changes in Australian farming, and we are seeing some of that already.  In Western Australia, farmland that was cropped is becoming rangeland grazing land.  While high cattle prices are making that an affordable option, the reality of farmers having large $ invested in machinery that is no longer viable is a problem.

Likewise the northern parts of Australia will also change.  Currently we have enough water near Kununurra to support a much bigger farming area and population, but Australian's do not want to move there.  This will continue to be an issue.

If Australia gets serious about horticulture, we can feed many more than we do currently.  We also have limits on what we can export because of other countries trade barriers.  So many of these type of issues require political solutuons.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 16, 2019, 10:18:33 PM
Maybe the kids will do something about it.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/science/most-american-teens-are-frightened-by-climate-change-poll-finds-and-about-1-in-4-are-taking-action/2019/09/15/1936da1c-d639-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html

"A 17-year-old from Texas says global warming scares him so much he can’t even think about it."

That is what I am feeling too. If you think too deeply about the consequences for (mostly future) people on this planet, it scares the willies out of me. I recently listened to a podcast with a climate expert who was asked what we could to stop it. He thought through the scenario where he would be a world dictator and doing everything right for climate. Even in that scenario, it wasn't possible to stop the 2 degree C warming.
My coping strategy for negative thoughts is thinking that my country will still be a good place to live for the next couple of decades, voting green and having relatively low living impact myself.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 16, 2019, 10:38:16 PM
PDX has drawn our attention to post 67 by former player. The post includes a link to the International Organisation for Migration, and one of its publications shows two maps, one with regions suffering heat stress up to the present, and another showing estimated regions of heat stress neat the end of this century. The increases in regions of heat stress is deeply disturbing, particularly when I realised that the data was monthly MEAN temperatures, so the monthly maxima and the few hottest days per month do not show, as the article pointed out. The maps are on page 5.

The Middle East is more vulnerable than I expected, and PDX wondered about drastic (military) social reactions. I suspect that one possibility is that Middle Eastern and Indian climate refugees, armed, will move into Africa. African nations are militarily the weakest in the world, and the invaders only have to cross narrow sea barriers. West Africa will be under heat stress, so the invaders will move to central and southern Africa. I hear that Africa has the largest untapped potential for dams and irrigation in the world, but African nations do not cooperate with each other, so river basin wide projects are difficult. The invaders will fix that.

This will mean African deaths on a huge scale.

The article failed to mention the effect of heat stress on crops, and I expect that failing crop production in heat stressed regions will be as important as heat stress on people.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 17, 2019, 03:14:12 AM
There's a lot more detail on future risks in the IPCC paper on Future Climate Changes, Risks and Impacts, which is pretty readable.  It should also be very scary for anyone likely to live into the second half of this century, or who has children likely to do so.

https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 17, 2019, 03:58:38 AM
There's a lot more detail on future risks in the IPCC paper on Future Climate Changes, Risks and Impacts, which is pretty readable.  It should also be very scary for anyone likely to live into the second half of this century, or who has children likely to do so.

https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php

Scary stuff.

Sometimes I think that we humans deserve that we are making it so hard for our own species, as have made so many other species on this planet (animals, plants and trees, fungi, etc) extinct.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: marty998 on September 17, 2019, 05:52:16 AM
Australia looks fucked in those maps. There isn't a polite way of saying that.

We already have severe bushfires in early spring. February is going to be fun when the height of summer rolls around.

The BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) had to add another colour on the temperature scale after we regularly broke through 50C (122F) a few years ago. The scale went from blue through white, yellow, orange, red, brown, black and then they added bright magenta for 54 (129.2F).

I suspect they may be adding yet another colour in the near future.

Not to be flippant but mother nature wins the title of worlds greatest the serial killer. Other species have come to a sudden end via volcanoes, lava flows, ice ages and asteroids.

We seem destined to be killed off by being roasted. The difference is that we had the power to stop it.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 17, 2019, 06:25:15 AM
The Middle East is more vulnerable than I expected, and PDX wondered about drastic (military) social reactions. I suspect that one possibility is that Middle Eastern and Indian climate refugees, armed, will move into Africa.

I don't pretend to see the future. But I'm more worried about a future with complete societal collapse in either Pakistan or India where a warlord or terrorist organization gets a hold of some nuclear weapons. This may seem far fetched but the west worked really hard to keep this for happening when the USSR collapsed, and it many ways a climate collapse where India plus all of the middle east plus large parts of Africa are in chaos would be much worse. Once that happens, who know? I'm sure that the professional security services have basically no idea what will happen 30~80 years from now. EDITed to add: I'm not trying to predict a specific outcome, just that societal collapse in two nuclear armed states is bad mkay?
 
West Africa will be under heat stress, so the invaders will move to central and southern Africa. I hear that Africa has the largest untapped potential for dams and irrigation in the world, but African nations do not cooperate with each other, so river basin wide projects are difficult. The invaders will fix that.

Most of Africa will be just as bad off as the middle east. Do you really think they are going to march all the way to southern Africa for some farm land? Europe is right next door. If Europe doesn't let you it just nuke the Sydney opera house to let them know that you mean business.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on September 17, 2019, 05:33:20 PM
Sure seems like doing things now to reduce impact is a better option than billions of refugees and yesteryear's apocalypse technology thrown in the mix.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 18, 2019, 06:13:39 AM
I have thought again about the IOM report cited by former player, reply 67. The figures show mean heat index for the hottest month in the year, and the extreme index, 46C and over is close to lethal. I lived for many years in the south east corner of Australia, in the top of the green zone for the map for the period before 2010. I once experienced air temperature of 46C, with relative humidity of 6%, which is very low, so I could lose heat by sweating. And I was indoors. A temperature of 46C and high humidity is another matter.

The map showing heat index up to 2010 shows a small, deep red patch in NW Australia. There is a notorious town called Marble Bar at the southern edge of that red spot. Almost nobody lives there, it is very dry, and in the 1920s it recorded 100 days with maximum temperatures over 100F.

When I was younger, I worked on an irrigation farm my father had, in the same region. Europeans grow wheat in the northern spring, summer, autumn, but because of the different climate in southern Australia, we grow wheat in the southern autumn, winter, spring. Works well. I now see that parts of India and Pakistan which have extreme heat now, and which will get hotter, will also grow crops in the cooler months of the year. What we need to know is whether these regions can continue to grow crops in the cooler months.

Poor countries cannot invade rich countries. A few rich countries also have the Bomb, and lots of them. Another flood of refugees, such as Syrians in, I think 2015, will be much more numerous, and Europe, driven by desperation, can fire enormous numbers of artillery air burst fragmentation rounds to kill them. Military anthrax is a possibility. Australia is too far away, and too hard to get to.

I can see climate refugees driving, not marching, south into Africa. The Middle East has plenty of oil, and the invaders can refuel by seizing local supplies of fuel.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 18, 2019, 06:35:34 AM
Maybe Greenland will turn into a fertile area when the ice has gone. There certainly should be place for more inhabitants once one can grow more crops there. That might be the reason why Trump some time ago suddenly wanted to buy Greenland, or was that more to drill after oil?

Maybe the world needs to build very big living platforms in the north pole region (when the ice is gone). Big enough to have soil and being able to grow crops, and store lots of people from the hot regions.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on September 18, 2019, 07:33:17 AM
We live in a world where economies and geopolitical issues can swing pretty wildly in the face of disruptions that don't even have particularly large direct impact on people.

A global scale massive alteration in weather events, liveability of entire regions across the globe, and massive disruption of supply chains...and people don't think it will affect them?

Peace and diplomacy are not givens of rich states, they are tenuous and delicately balanced arrangements that are very susceptible to systemic upheaval.

Personally, it's not the food shortages or specific weather changes I'm most personally concerned about, it's civil unrest and subsequent curtailing of civil liberties as a result.

The world is actually incredibly inefficient at responding to disruption. I mean, for fuck's sake, just look at this Brexit nonsense.

Now expand the magnitude to a global scale where every single market and political entity is affected. We simply do not have the systems in place to handle that scale of issue.
We just don't, which is why we've failed so miserably to address it so far.

Just disrupting the oil industry alone is an extremely volatile issue with very far reaching impact.

No matter what happens, the response will be on a global scale, it will be disorganized, messy, and there will be a lot of violence, an astronomical amount of death, and guaranteed, some very heavy handed responses from those in power.

I'm basing this on direct conversations with the very people in my own government whose job it is to make recommendations as to when and how civil liberties should be suspended in the event of disruption. They model everything, and the threshold for outbreak of civil violence is very very low, which means so is the bar for totalitarianism.
...now turn it up to 11

The kicker is that even if technology magically swoops in with solutions, that in and of itself would be such a massive sociopolitical and economic disruptor, that even being saved with respect to climate change would come with far reaching consequences that aren't likely to produce a smooth and peaceful transition to a new world order.

The timelines are too short, the magnitude too large, the scale too global, and the interests involved too great and volatile in order for this to proceed in a way that isn't a cluster fuck.

Honestly for me, the biggest issue will be the developed world finally having to really come to grips with its cognitively dissonant version of humanity. We presently purport to value human life while living in a global system that sustains the intense suffering and abuse of huge populations for the benefit of the few. We cope with this dissonance by compartmentalizing those populations and just wishing it could be different for them, while largely blaming the power structures above them...and ignoring our complicit role in sustaining those power structures, but whatevs.

However, when rich nation's actively decide to turn people away to die, as they are doing already, it's impossible to sustain the veneer of human decency in the face of barbaric tribalism.

"It's okay, those people can die"
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 18, 2019, 08:20:21 AM
I'm basing this on direct conversations with the very people in my own government whose job it is to make recommendations as to when and how civil liberties should be suspended in the event of disruption. They model everything, and the threshold for outbreak of civil violence is very very low, which means so is the bar for totalitarianism.
Agreed.  The mantra I've heard is that we are 24 hours and two missed meals away from anarchy.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: caleb on September 18, 2019, 10:21:01 AM
Many have likely seen this article already, but last month the Washington Post mapped the state of climate change in the U.S.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/

In northern Minnesota, it's very apparent, with some areas already above the 2.5C mark.  Crops are changing, vegetation is changing, animals are changing, and we seem to be trending ever-wetter.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Samuel on September 18, 2019, 10:42:47 AM
Agreed.  The mantra I've heard is that we are 24 hours and two missed meals away from anarchy.

That jibes with my experience as a pet owner.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: caleb on September 18, 2019, 12:43:10 PM
I'm basing this on direct conversations with the very people in my own government whose job it is to make recommendations as to when and how civil liberties should be suspended in the event of disruption. They model everything, and the threshold for outbreak of civil violence is very very low, which means so is the bar for totalitarianism.
Agreed.  The mantra I've heard is that we are 24 hours and two missed meals away from anarchy.

Even within totally normal temperature fluctuations, crime waves correlate strongly with heat waves.

Imagine cranking up the thermometer to new levels while there are rolling power outages.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 18, 2019, 06:58:38 PM

Agreed.  The mantra I've heard is that we are 24 hours and two missed meals away from anarchy.

Your agreement is with government modelling. Of course we have been given no source for this, so it may all be made up. But let's take it as read. It's common for authorities to assume and claim that the populace is constantly on the edge of violent revolt and anarchy. This is somewhat self-serving, and justifies all sorts of impositions on civil liberties. This is actually a misconception, as laid out here in detail by the CDC.

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/emergency_response/common_misconceptions.pdf (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/emergency_response/common_misconceptions.pdf)


"researchers have found—at least in the immediate aftermath of disasters—that community resilience and unity, strengthening of social ties, selfhelp, heightened initiative, altruism, and prosocial behavior more often prevail. In short, when things are at their worst, disaster-stricken communities tend to rise to the occasion."

They go on to say that obviously previously high-crime areas remain high-crime after a disaster, and so on. Obviously, as a government agency they don't talk about government being a threat, but...

In fact, people tend to band together and help each-other out, and if there's any threat to life and limb beyond the disaster, it comes from the government authorities. A great example is Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, where the media and government hysterically asserted that there was mass murder, rape and looting, federal officials threatened the use of the military to kill civilians, and so on. In fact, almost no citizens murdered each-other, nor did they loot beyond what was required for sustenance. However, police forces fired on unarmed civilians, and one-third of the New Orleans Police Department deserted, and the police were responsible for most of the looting.

During time of crisis, your neighbour will probably help you. A well-run government will help you, too. A badly-run government will not help you, and may actually hurt you. This is why death tolls from natural disasters tend to be higher in autocratic countries than democratic countries, though of course as Katrina demonstrated, even democratic countries can have autocratic tendencies, with corruption, cowardice and incompetence dominating affairs.

This is of course an argument for better government, for ensuring that you keep your representatives accountable. But it is also reassurance that the zombie movies you see are not documentaries.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 18, 2019, 07:42:37 PM
Very helpful post, @Kyle Schuant.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 22, 2019, 01:06:52 AM
Very helpful post, @Kyle Schuant.

Me too from a fellow Australian. +1
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on September 22, 2019, 01:38:50 AM

More thoughts about the predicted heating of the Middle East and India. For many years, there has been talk of towing icebergs from Antarctica to hot regions of the world, for fresh water and perhaps air conditioning. Google tells me that engineers expect so much ice loss as an iceberg is towed, that the project is not worth while. If it does become feasible, then I see a continuous stream of icebergs being towed at a slow walking pace, and left in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. All winds except north will keep bergs pressed against a shallow sea bottom. Fresh bergs keep coming, so the Red Sea and Persian Gulf become seas of cold fresh water, so wind blowing across it will be cooled.

Google tells me that the strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, is too shallow for bergs, but I expect that the bottom could be deepened with explosives and dredging.

Pump the fresh water out for centre pivot irrigation. I have seen centre pivots in action, and they are surprising devices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_pivot_irrigation

Gulf states can afford the cost of such a project, but rich countries might pay for the project for other regions, to head off the risk of social collapse, which some posters have predicted.

The monsoon that blows north towards Bangladesh blows in the northern summer, so bergs will be pressed by the prevailing wind in shallow sea bottom in the northern Bay of Bengal.

The Gulf of Tonkin next to Vietnam and south China looks promising, because all winds except north east will keeps bergs in place.


Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 22, 2019, 04:02:13 AM

More thoughts about the predicted heating of the Middle East and India. For many years, there has been talk of towing icebergs from Antarctica to hot regions of the world, for fresh water and perhaps air conditioning. Google tells me that engineers expect so much ice loss as an iceberg is towed, that the project is not worth while. If it does become feasible, then I see a continuous stream of icebergs being towed at a slow walking pace, and left in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. All winds except north will keep bergs pressed against a shallow sea bottom. Fresh bergs keep coming, so the Red Sea and Persian Gulf become seas of cold fresh water, so wind blowing across it will be cooled.

Google tells me that the strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, is too shallow for bergs, but I expect that the bottom could be deepened with explosives and dredging.

Pump the fresh water out for centre pivot irrigation. I have seen centre pivots in action, and they are surprising devices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_pivot_irrigation

Gulf states can afford the cost of such a project, but rich countries might pay for the project for other regions, to head off the risk of social collapse, which some posters have predicted.

The monsoon that blows north towards Bangladesh blows in the northern summer, so bergs will be pressed by the prevailing wind in shallow sea bottom in the northern Bay of Bengal.

The Gulf of Tonkin next to Vietnam and south China looks promising, because all winds except north east will keeps bergs in place.
It's a cute idea, but surely if engineers think it impractical at the moment then with warming ice, warming seas and warming winds it becomes progressively less and less practical?  And even if it works it doesn't resolve the overall warming issues, just mitigates some local ones.

Perhaps southern Africa, so much closer to Antarctica than the places you mention, might have more of a chance of making it work, but more for the fresh water (badly needed in Cape Town) than the cooling effect.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 22, 2019, 05:30:21 AM
IIRC, I saw a study a couple months ago in some scientists attempted generally to model climate with respect to the effects of possible geoengineering measures. They weren't guaranteeing that such measures would work as hoped for, just calculating as best they could the overall result on the global system if the measures did work. Their conclusion in initial modeling was basically that they were likely to be insufficient to stop global warming on their own, but almost certain to be necessary because they appear to be very effective in limiited contexts that would reduce the problem but not solve it. Their models suggested that outcomes without geoengineering at all would be much worse.

If true, then we're in an "all of the above" situation. We presumably need to conserve/be efficient, change systems to reduce carbon, attempt offsets and carbon capture, geoengineer, AND mitigate. If the icebergs can help for a while, even some limited mitigation might save lives and reduce societal trauma.

Something makes me think the mitigation value would have to be compared against the carbon produced by towing the icebergs. Not sure how that would pan out anyway.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on September 22, 2019, 07:54:33 AM
Nuke plants, electric cars and trains.   Like the folks of the Middle Ages people today will go kicking and screaming into the future.  Safety?  Problems represent opportunities for the open mind.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: FLBiker on September 26, 2019, 04:29:17 AM
This is part of why we're moving from Florida to Canada next year.  Climate-wise, we expect Canada to be better off (both in terms of weather but also in terms of things like fresh water and disease).  We also think (perhaps we're wrong) that Canada is culturally more "pull together" than "every person for themselves".  We have a four year old, and we're basically making the move because we want to get her set up where we feel like the next several decades will be better.  Who knows?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: StarBright on September 26, 2019, 05:59:41 AM
This is part of why we're moving from Florida to Canada next year.  Climate-wise, we expect Canada to be better off (both in terms of weather but also in terms of things like fresh water and disease).  We also think (perhaps we're wrong) that Canada is culturally more "pull together" than "every person for themselves".  We have a four year old, and we're basically making the move because we want to get her set up where we feel like the next several decades will be better.  Who knows?

We are similar. Last year we had to decide between jobs in SoCal, TX, and Northern Ohio - future climate for our children did come into our decision.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on September 26, 2019, 09:55:56 AM
I'm basing this on direct conversations with the very people in my own government whose job it is to make recommendations as to when and how civil liberties should be suspended in the event of disruption. They model everything, and the threshold for outbreak of civil violence is very very low, which means so is the bar for totalitarianism.
Agreed.  The mantra I've heard is that we are 24 hours and two missed meals away from anarchy.

Even within totally normal temperature fluctuations, crime waves correlate strongly with heat waves.

Imagine cranking up the thermometer to new levels while there are rolling power outages.

All good reasons not to live in crowded places dependent on gasoline, grocery stores and big trucks.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 26, 2019, 10:18:25 AM
I'm basing this on direct conversations with the very people in my own government whose job it is to make recommendations as to when and how civil liberties should be suspended in the event of disruption. They model everything, and the threshold for outbreak of civil violence is very very low, which means so is the bar for totalitarianism.
Agreed.  The mantra I've heard is that we are 24 hours and two missed meals away from anarchy.

Even within totally normal temperature fluctuations, crime waves correlate strongly with heat waves.

Imagine cranking up the thermometer to new levels while there are rolling power outages.

All good reasons not to live in crowded places dependent on gasoline, grocery stores and big trucks.

Where are you planning on living?

Most rural areas are at least as dependent on gasoline as the urban areas.  None of the farmland I've lived in was anywhere near self-sufficient.  Most farmers grow only one or two crops, have well water that requires grid power, and need automobiles to get places since each house is several kilometers away from the next.  Actually planting and harvesting requires regular supply of diesel and gas - few and far between are the farmers who know how to tend a field with a horse.  The farmers with livestock are even more dependent upon gas to provide feed for their animals, refrigeration for things like milk, etc.

In a rural area you're not likely to get help in time if there's crime, if there's a medical emergency, or if there's a disaster.  Don't get me wrong, crowded places can be dangerous, but you're kidding yourself if you think that rural life is significantly safer.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on September 26, 2019, 11:44:23 AM
Where are you planning on living?

Most rural areas are at least as dependent on gasoline as the urban areas.  None of the farmland I've lived in was anywhere near self-sufficient.  Most farmers grow only one or two crops, have well water that requires grid power, and need automobiles to get places since each house is several kilometers away from the next.  Actually planting and harvesting requires regular supply of diesel and gas - few and far between are the farmers who know how to tend a field with a horse.  The farmers with livestock are even more dependent upon gas to provide feed for their animals, refrigeration for things like milk, etc.

In a rural area you're not likely to get help in time if there's crime, if there's a medical emergency, or if there's a disaster.  Don't get me wrong, crowded places can be dangerous, but you're kidding yourself if you think that rural life is significantly safer.

There is a sweet spot between Manhattan and the middle of empty Wyoming. We purposefully live in a small town. We have a loose mental plan for how we would cope with a world gone upside down but we aren't preppers as seen on TV.  We're out in the country but close enough to bicycle or walk (in a pinch). It would be even easier to get to town if the main roads were empty and safe to bike on. Hopefully our frugality would help us smooth the transition from what we know now to whatever came next. Hopefully it would allow us to stock up on whatever we thought we needed.

Humananity may be forced by sickness or starvation or social unrest to reset the society's clock to 1900 if technology can't deliver us from global warming.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on September 26, 2019, 05:06:45 PM
I don't know.  Seems like some people have been worried about some sort of apocalypse since I was a kid.  This song came out long ago when I was a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I)

I still like the tune.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on September 26, 2019, 05:23:45 PM
I don't know.  Seems like some people have been worried about some sort of apocalypse since I was a kid.  This song came out long ago when I was a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I)

I still like the tune.

"People" have predicted all sorts of nonsense, but does the global scientific community really have the same reputation?

With that question, I also want to very clearly distinguish scientific discourse from the media discourse around science, because those are two very very different things.

As a former research scientist, I can say that we are a breed of careful-speaking folk who hesitate to say anything definitive unless we absolutely have to, so the deafening roar from the scientists on this matter is, well, to me, pants-shittingly-unprecented.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on September 27, 2019, 03:32:23 AM
Replication crisis
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on September 27, 2019, 08:32:30 AM
We all know politician's talk is cheap - some far cheaper than others. Example: see White House.

Is there any chance at all that there is a different more thoughtful discussion going on behind the closed doors of our government or is it just as chaotic when the doors are closed?

Does the right REALLY care so much about bathroom laws and the gender of who marries who or is this just the public BS they throw out there to attract voters who worry about BS topics like that?

Could the think tanks possibly be planning a more sophisticated strategy to deal with climate change that can be passed along to the talking heads soon?

I feel like the American conservatives are wasting valuable time. As someone else pointed out early - each day we keep burning oil means the oil industry pockets another ~$5B.

To the people pocketing the cash - delaying changes is very profitable.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on September 27, 2019, 09:09:13 AM
We all know politician's talk is cheap - some far cheaper than others. Example: see White House.

Is there any chance at all that there is a different more thoughtful discussion going on behind the closed doors of our government or is it just as chaotic when the doors are closed?
My experience from the other side of the Atlantic is that there is solid, fact based work going on by the civil servants, backed by scientific research commissioned as necessary, but that once things get to the political level it's hard to make change happen if the public think there is an immediate disadvantage to them, even if the long term result will be better overall.  There would have been some radical environmental policies in the UK 10 years ago (I know, I worked on them) if politicians (of all political persuasions) didn't fold at the first indication of public opposition.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 27, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
We all know politician's talk is cheap - some far cheaper than others. Example: see White House.

Is there any chance at all that there is a different more thoughtful discussion going on behind the closed doors of our government or is it just as chaotic when the doors are closed?
My experience from the other side of the Atlantic is that there is solid, fact based work going on by the civil servants, backed by scientific research commissioned as necessary, but that once things get to the political level it's hard to make change happen if the public think there is an immediate disadvantage to them, even if the long term result will be better overall.  There would have been some radical environmental policies in the UK 10 years ago (I know, I worked on them) if politicians (of all political persuasions) didn't fold at the first indication of public opposition.

@former player, thanks for posting personal testimony - very valuable.

@Just Joe, ICYMI - there are plans on the books, already in the form of bills, that would make a huge difference. I read in The Economist's recent Climate Issue that "Four former Federal Reserve chairmen and 27 Nobel-prize-winning economists advocate a carbon tax whose proceeds are distributed to Americans in equal lump sums". The US's Carbon Dividend Act bill, currently denoted House Resolution 763, would implement exactly this very powerful policy. If you can vote in the US, you have standing to contact your Senators and US Representative, asking them to pass this bill.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PDXTabs on September 27, 2019, 03:54:09 PM
Most rural areas are at least as dependent on gasoline as the urban areas.  None of the farmland I've lived in was anywhere near self-sufficient.  Most farmers grow only one or two crops, have well water that requires grid power, and need automobiles to get places since each house is several kilometers away from the next.  Actually planting and harvesting requires regular supply of diesel and gas - few and far between are the farmers who know how to tend a field with a horse.  The farmers with livestock are even more dependent upon gas to provide feed for their animals, refrigeration for things like milk, etc.

I just wanted to point out that windpumps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpump) never went out of style for pumping well water. Also, that my family managed to farm without ICEs back in the day, I'm sure that it can be done. I'm also sure that it isn't particularly pleasant, and won't feed the whole population.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 27, 2019, 04:49:30 PM
Is there any chance at all that there is a different more thoughtful discussion going on behind the closed doors of our government or is it just as chaotic when the doors are closed?
Did you see the transcript of the conversation between the US and Ukraine Presidents? Did either of them strike you as thoughtful and intelligent?

In a democracy, we elect people who represent us. They may or may not represent the best of us, but they do represent us.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 28, 2019, 03:08:34 AM
On another note, the choice of a teenaged girl to support as a spokesperson for the movement is very cunning. They have evidently learned from the mess of DeCaprio et al, multi-millionaires jetting in for a meeting, apart from the rank hypocrisy, they're not sympathetic figures, and between their excessive and wasteful wealth and their smugness they're eminently attackable. But when people attack an earnest teenaged girl everyone can say "oh my god how dare you, somebody think of the children!" They've borrowed this tactic from the right-wing.

Finally they're being smart. Unfortunately, not smart enough to decouple environmentalism from the other causes they're supporting. If to care about rivers (for example) you only have to care about rivers, you can get everyone from some gay 25yo vegan city accountant to some fundamentalist 55yo rural pig hunter to join together. But if to join the Save The River movement you must also be in favour of same-sex marriage, or against it, in favour of vaccination or against it, etc, then your movement will be limited in its success. Unfortunately the modern environmentalist movement insists on being a package deal.

But using a teenaged girl as a human shield is smart. I hope her family and friends are supportive when she hits 18-20yo and those pushing her forward drop her abruptly.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: davisgang90 on September 28, 2019, 07:29:30 AM
This is a good post by Scott Adams.

I agree with him on nuclear power and other options to alleviate the climate issues. 

https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change (https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 28, 2019, 10:11:08 AM
Wow, that's really weird.   A Scott Adams post I largely agree with.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2019, 10:58:08 AM
Wow, that's really weird.   A Scott Adams post I largely agree with.

There are a lot of things wrong with that essay but the last paragraph has this doozy:

Quote from: scottadams
We adults have this problem under control, or will soon, and you’ll help us finish the job.

It's all under control! Or will be soon by the recently passed legislation something-prayers-something.

Keep whistling past the graveyard, Scott.


Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 28, 2019, 12:02:54 PM
I never believed that the governments of the world would do much to mitigate climate change.    For example, they're fiddling around with carbon taxes, but a carbon tax sufficient to make a radical change in behaviour would be political suicide.    Do you really think legislation will address climate change?

The points Adams makes that I agree with are:

1.  The news is sensationalist.    If you go to the front page of a major new site such as the nytimes, the number of opinion pieces is pretty excessive.   Climate reports in the news are also sensationalist.

2.  Nuclear power generation is a safe, low carbon method and we should be using it more.

3.  Climate change will take place gradually and allow people to adjust.    The adjustments may not be popular, but there's lots of time.

You're right in saying that it's not under control.    We need to keep up the pressure to innovate and move away from our fossil fuel based economy.    There's no reason not to be rationally optimistic, we just need to think of the solution in terms of innovation instead of legislation.   If people are waiting for legislation to fix climate change they're going to have a long wait.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2019, 12:49:09 PM
1.  In what way do you believe that climate reporting is sensationalist?  The research that I've read is all pretty clear that we have an immediate and rapidly worsening problem.  To date there has been no technological breakthrough or advancement capable of pulling us out of this situation, and very little political will to make the changes necessary to stop it without.

2.  I'm generally in favour of nuclear plants myself, but think it is a mistake to view them as a panacea for all the world's problems.  There are issues related to waste storage, accidents (although exceedingly rare), and long term fuel supply.

3.  This reads as pure fantasy fiction to me, but I'd like to give you a better chance to explain.  Exactly how many years do you believe we have to adjust before we start to see significant impacts from climate change?  In the past 30 years, what successes in reversing human caused climate change are you aware of?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on September 28, 2019, 06:57:42 PM
Scott Adams' post is popular because what it's really saying is, "We don't have to do anything." Anything which promotes inertia will of course have many supporters.

If a solution is (for example) no more driving, then you and I have to do something. If it's nuclear power, we don't have to do anything. Which is going to be more popular? :)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on September 29, 2019, 08:17:57 AM
There was once a time when the United States had a Camelot president when Nuclear Power was not viewed as a the last option.  It was sort of viewed as a gift given to humanity for the future.  Maybe it's time to truly embrace that gift as a tool that is needed.

You know think about cars.  Think how far cars have come since the 1960s.  Think about how far computers have come since the 1960s.

A lot of nuclear plants running today were designed using tried and true 1960s technology.  Not bad really, it got mankind to the moon in those times.  Times have moved on.  We have better technology.

If new designs were allowed to be built, they would have higher thermodynamic efficiency and have less waste.

You want to fix this climate problem or just talk about it?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on September 29, 2019, 08:52:48 AM
1.  In what way do you believe that climate reporting is sensationalist?  The research that I've read is all pretty clear that we have an immediate and rapidly worsening problem.  To date there has been no technological breakthrough or advancement capable of pulling us out of this situation, and very little political will to make the changes necessary to stop it without.

2.  I'm generally in favour of nuclear plants myself, but think it is a mistake to view them as a panacea for all the world's problems.  There are issues related to waste storage, accidents (although exceedingly rare), and long term fuel supply.

3.  This reads as pure fantasy fiction to me, but I'd like to give you a better chance to explain.  Exactly how many years do you believe we have to adjust before we start to see significant impacts from climate change?  In the past 30 years, what successes in reversing human caused climate change are you aware of?

1.  Here's a sensationalist article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/)
The subtitle is
Quote
Once, this country led the global conversation that helped save the ozone layer. Now, in a climate crisis, we can’t even have an honest conversation among ourselves about what must be done to save us all

There are new ones every day.

2.  It sounds like we generally agree on nuclear power.   If we continue to improve designs of nuclear power plants, safety and efficiency will continue to increase.   I think they are alot better than coal fired electrical plants...

3.   Things are changing slowly.   Toronto is only 76m above sea level.   How long until downtown TO is flooded?   Low lying areas like New Orleans will have more immediate problems, but they are a small fraction of the total.    Two climate problems that have been addressed in the last 30 years are acid rain and ozone layer depletion.   

But those examples just prove my point.   Acid rain and ozone layer depletion were relatively small scope problems that could be addressed without a huge impact to our current economy.    More creative solutions than carbon taxes and other legislation are needed to deal with global climate change.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on September 29, 2019, 09:58:19 AM
More creative solutions than carbon taxes and other legislation are needed to deal with global climate change.

That's very true! In particular, I agree that technological improvements (possibly including nice safe modern nuclear reactors) are important solutions that should be pursued.

Yet we also need legislation (such as carbon tax and dividend methods, where the tax money returns directly to the people, so the net cost is zero for typical consumers). We need both.

Fwiw, I saw a comprehensive climate model the other day that integrated about 20 of the largest known factors affecting climate, based on IPCC reports, and combined their effects to estimate temperature in 2100. It was configured so that each factor's impact was represented by a slider in which current policies and effectiveness could be varied to higher or lower levels, affecting the calculated temperature. It appeared that no one factor was sufficient.

The sliders were initially set at current levels, which the model calculated would produce a temperature increase of about 8 degrees from baseline levels. The second biggest individual factor appeared to technological improvements, but by itself, that made a difference of a little more than one degree IIRC. Most factors only did one or tenths by themselves, so technology is powerful. But the biggest impact was a combination. The biggest factor was price-and-dividend legislation, which by itself was projected to make nearly 3 degrees' worth of improvement. But if technology improved along with implementing price-and-dividend, the combination of just those two had about 5 degrees of impact - they were stronger together than apart. Getting the overall result down to 2 degrees instead of 3 required adding several other factors.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on September 29, 2019, 10:26:05 AM
That's very true! In particular, I agree that technological improvements (possibly including nice safe modern nuclear reactors) are important solutions that should be pursued.

Yet we also need legislation (such as carbon tax and dividend methods, where the tax money returns directly to the people, so the net cost is zero for typical consumers). We need both.

Carbon tax and dividend would be a real game changer.

A carbon tax by itself can get attacked with all of the usual approaches used to shoot down new taxes, especially the ones about pushing families living on the edge into bankruptcy.

The dividend part neutralizes a lot of regular ways a method to raise taxes gets attacked as it lets us increase the cost of carbon emissions to create economic incentives for 1) increases in efficiency at both the individual consumer and corporate levels 2) adoption of current lower/zero emission alternatives by produces and 3) R&D into new tech for, all without squeezing poor families.

The other thing a carbon tax-and-dividend would do is create a built in constituency of people benefiting from the dividend that would advocate both against any future attempts to roll back the tax and probably for increases in the tax to increase the size of the dividend. Just look at how invested Alaskans are in their oil dividend.*

This provides a lot more regulatory certainty, so corps have bigger incentives to invest in new more-efficient/lower-emission infrastructure** as well as R&D with long term payoffs than with a regular tax or cap implemented by one president (or governor) where the optimal strategy for them may be to simply pay the tax for 4 or 8 years and then back a candidate who promises to repeal it.

So like you said, BicycleB, the combination of technology and regulation is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

*Although I will be the first to admit that the Alaskan example isn't perfect. It's better to have a strong firewall between dividend money and  the regular government budget, so you don't produce situations like the one up there this year where the government tried to cut the budget of the university of alaska 40% to increate the size of the dividend they'd be able to pay.
**Which of course includes expensive nuclear reactors which take multiple elections to build.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on September 29, 2019, 11:27:09 AM
Right now any new nuke plant you build is going to be a prototype, a pilot plant.

If the technology was honed with the first one and replicated, shouldn't the cost go down a lot for the next ones?

Most everything else works that way.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on October 01, 2019, 02:50:57 AM
For those of you who do believe that climate apocalypse is indeed coming (soon):

Today I read about Deep Adaptation. That is a movement of people who believe that the climate apocalypse cannot be avoided anymore and that we better prepare for what awaits us, collapse of society as we know it.
I found a local facebook group with similarly thinking people.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: partgypsy on October 01, 2019, 11:19:06 AM
For those of you who do believe that climate apocalypse is indeed coming (soon):

Today I read about Deep Adaptation. That is a movement of people who believe that the climate apocalypse cannot be avoided anymore and that we better prepare for what awaits us, collapse of society as we know it.
I found a local facebook group with similarly thinking people.

I haven't heard that. I mean, anything we do at this point will simply blunt or mitigate the change, we can't prevent it at this point. Most species on the planet will not be able to "adapt" to this quick of a climate change, especially as environments and ecosystems are being used or degraded by human activities at the same time.
So, both will need to be done. We will need to figure out and implement reducing c02 emissions long term. We will also need to adapt to the changes that climate change will bring. As both of these things will mean a restriction in energy, foodstuffs and resources, they are not contradictory impulses. I just wish the US could figure a way to wean ourselves off our car habit...  That sad, I don't want me and my kids just to "survive". Existing is not good enough goal but a way we can move to sustaining cultures and societies that are less stressful on this planet.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: ncornilsen on October 01, 2019, 11:33:21 AM
That's very true! In particular, I agree that technological improvements (possibly including nice safe modern nuclear reactors) are important solutions that should be pursued.

Yet we also need legislation (such as carbon tax and dividend methods, where the tax money returns directly to the people, so the net cost is zero for typical consumers). We need both.

Carbon tax and dividend would be a real game changer.

A carbon tax by itself can get attacked with all of the usual approaches used to shoot down new taxes, especially the ones about pushing families living on the edge into bankruptcy.

The dividend part neutralizes a lot of regular ways a method to raise taxes gets attacked as it lets us increase the cost of carbon emissions to create economic incentives for 1) increases in efficiency at both the individual consumer and corporate levels 2) adoption of current lower/zero emission alternatives by produces and 3) R&D into new tech for, all without squeezing poor families.

The other thing a carbon tax-and-dividend would do is create a built in constituency of people benefiting from the dividend that would advocate both against any future attempts to roll back the tax and probably for increases in the tax to increase the size of the dividend. Just look at how invested Alaskans are in their oil dividend.*

This provides a lot more regulatory certainty, so corps have bigger incentives to invest in new more-efficient/lower-emission infrastructure** as well as R&D with long term payoffs than with a regular tax or cap implemented by one president (or governor) where the optimal strategy for them may be to simply pay the tax for 4 or 8 years and then back a candidate who promises to repeal it.

So like you said, BicycleB, the combination of technology and regulation is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

*Although I will be the first to admit that the Alaskan example isn't perfect. It's better to have a strong firewall between dividend money and  the regular government budget, so you don't produce situations like the one up there this year where the government tried to cut the budget of the university of alaska 40% to increate the size of the dividend they'd be able to pay.
**Which of course includes expensive nuclear reactors which take multiple elections to build.


I'm a Republican, and I support this message. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 01, 2019, 12:29:28 PM
1.  In what way do you believe that climate reporting is sensationalist?  The research that I've read is all pretty clear that we have an immediate and rapidly worsening problem.  To date there has been no technological breakthrough or advancement capable of pulling us out of this situation, and very little political will to make the changes necessary to stop it without.

2.  I'm generally in favour of nuclear plants myself, but think it is a mistake to view them as a panacea for all the world's problems.  There are issues related to waste storage, accidents (although exceedingly rare), and long term fuel supply.

3.  This reads as pure fantasy fiction to me, but I'd like to give you a better chance to explain.  Exactly how many years do you believe we have to adjust before we start to see significant impacts from climate change?  In the past 30 years, what successes in reversing human caused climate change are you aware of?

1.  Here's a sensationalist article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/)
The subtitle is
Quote
Once, this country led the global conversation that helped save the ozone layer. Now, in a climate crisis, we can’t even have an honest conversation among ourselves about what must be done to save us all

There are new ones every day.

The title of the article is sensational. The part you quoted is completely true ever since high ranking members of the Conservative party started denying that climate change is a real thing.  An honest conversation is difficult to have when one group has decided that it's politically expedient to tell people that they can be as wasteful as they want with no repercussions.



3.   Things are changing slowly.   Toronto is only 76m above sea level.   How long until downtown TO is flooded?   Low lying areas like New Orleans will have more immediate problems, but they are a small fraction of the total.    Two climate problems that have been addressed in the last 30 years are acid rain and ozone layer depletion.   

But those examples just prove my point.   Acid rain and ozone layer depletion were relatively small scope problems that could be addressed without a huge impact to our current economy.    More creative solutions than carbon taxes and other legislation are needed to deal with global climate change.

You didn't answer my questions.

The climate does change slowly.  But we've been observing these changes now for fifty years.  The ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 20 years.  That's a very fast change.  There are significant changes currently recorded in both the ocean and cryosphere (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf)).  Many of these changes have been measured since the 60s, 70s, and 80s.  They have all worsened over that period of time.

So I have to ask you again . . . exactly how many more years do you believe we have to adjust?  Will you wait until Toronto is under water before you decide that it's time to do something?  Or until there's no more polar ice cap?  Or is there a threshold of extinction events that you're waiting for?  What will motivate you to believe that the problem we've been warned about and seen coming for decades is something worth addressing?

Our economy is largely to blame for the climate problems we're seeing.  It's not surprising that solutions impact the economy.  I've quite surprised that you're against carbon taxes . . . as that's one of the simplest way to encourage people and companies to behave properly - charge them some of the cost of the damage that they're doing.  You believe that more creative solutions are needed to deal with climate change?

OK.  Cool.  Let's hear them.

If you don't provide these solutions, but instead only try to tear down what people are currently working on . . .  you're just worsening the problem by perpetuating a status quo that has been failing for decades.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on October 01, 2019, 01:45:13 PM
For those of you who do believe that climate apocalypse is indeed coming (soon):

Today I read about Deep Adaptation. That is a movement of people who believe that the climate apocalypse cannot be avoided anymore and that we better prepare for what awaits us, collapse of society as we know it.
I found a local facebook group with similarly thinking people.

I haven't heard that. I mean, anything we do at this point will simply blunt or mitigate the change, we can't prevent it at this point. Most species on the planet will not be able to "adapt" to this quick of a climate change, especially as environments and ecosystems are being used or degraded by human activities at the same time.
So, both will need to be done. We will need to figure out and implement reducing c02 emissions long term. We will also need to adapt to the changes that climate change will bring. As both of these things will mean a restriction in energy, foodstuffs and resources, they are not contradictory impulses. I just wish the US could figure a way to wean ourselves off our car habit...  That sad, I don't want me and my kids just to "survive". Existing is not good enough goal but a way we can move to sustaining cultures and societies that are less stressful on this planet.

The group isn't just about surviving, it is also about altering society to prepare for the new future. The goal is to still have a form of society, rather then everyone surviving for themselves. But it also about living the simple life, with lots of recycling habits and grow your own veggies.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: partgypsy on October 01, 2019, 03:15:09 PM
For those of you who do believe that climate apocalypse is indeed coming (soon):

Today I read about Deep Adaptation. That is a movement of people who believe that the climate apocalypse cannot be avoided anymore and that we better prepare for what awaits us, collapse of society as we know it.
I found a local facebook group with similarly thinking people.

I haven't heard that. I mean, anything we do at this point will simply blunt or mitigate the change, we can't prevent it at this point. Most species on the planet will not be able to "adapt" to this quick of a climate change, especially as environments and ecosystems are being used or degraded by human activities at the same time.
So, both will need to be done. We will need to figure out and implement reducing c02 emissions long term. We will also need to adapt to the changes that climate change will bring. As both of these things will mean a restriction in energy, foodstuffs and resources, they are not contradictory impulses. I just wish the US could figure a way to wean ourselves off our car habit...  That sad, I don't want me and my kids just to "survive". Existing is not good enough goal but a way we can move to sustaining cultures and societies that are less stressful on this planet.

The group isn't just about surviving, it is also about altering society to prepare for the new future. The goal is to still have a form of society, rather then everyone surviving for themselves. But it also about living the simple life, with lots of recycling habits and grow your own veggies.

I know myself I feel very wasteful the way I live. In part because I work while having 2 kids, I simply do not prepare food the way I would prefer (less packaging). I also feel the way I live is wasteful, in that once the kids grow up and move out, it will just be me with a house. Most likely as nature abhors a vacumn my sister will move in, and I will gain another semi-dependent. Sometimes I feel I should be open to something more radical. For example if my lot was big enough I think I would be OK living in a tiny house in the back and renting my actual house : ) But my yard is not big enough. I also daydream about making an apartment in the attic, but it seems like it would be too expensive for the return (80K). 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 01, 2019, 04:14:36 PM
1.  In what way do you believe that climate reporting is sensationalist?  The research that I've read is all pretty clear that we have an immediate and rapidly worsening problem.  To date there has been no technological breakthrough or advancement capable of pulling us out of this situation, and very little political will to make the changes necessary to stop it without.

2.  I'm generally in favour of nuclear plants myself, but think it is a mistake to view them as a panacea for all the world's problems.  There are issues related to waste storage, accidents (although exceedingly rare), and long term fuel supply.

3.  This reads as pure fantasy fiction to me, but I'd like to give you a better chance to explain.  Exactly how many years do you believe we have to adjust before we start to see significant impacts from climate change?  In the past 30 years, what successes in reversing human caused climate change are you aware of?

1.  Here's a sensationalist article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/)
The subtitle is
Quote
Once, this country led the global conversation that helped save the ozone layer. Now, in a climate crisis, we can’t even have an honest conversation among ourselves about what must be done to save us all

There are new ones every day.

The title of the article is sensational. The part you quoted is completely true ever since high ranking members of the Conservative party started denying that climate change is a real thing.  An honest conversation is difficult to have when one group has decided that it's politically expedient to tell people that they can be as wasteful as they want with no repercussions.



3.   Things are changing slowly.   Toronto is only 76m above sea level.   How long until downtown TO is flooded?   Low lying areas like New Orleans will have more immediate problems, but they are a small fraction of the total.    Two climate problems that have been addressed in the last 30 years are acid rain and ozone layer depletion.   

But those examples just prove my point.   Acid rain and ozone layer depletion were relatively small scope problems that could be addressed without a huge impact to our current economy.    More creative solutions than carbon taxes and other legislation are needed to deal with global climate change.

You didn't answer my questions.

The climate does change slowly.  But we've been observing these changes now for fifty years.  The ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 20 years.  That's a very fast change.  There are significant changes currently recorded in both the ocean and cryosphere (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf)).  Many of these changes have been measured since the 60s, 70s, and 80s.  They have all worsened over that period of time.

So I have to ask you again . . . exactly how many more years do you believe we have to adjust?  Will you wait until Toronto is under water before you decide that it's time to do something?  Or until there's no more polar ice cap?  Or is there a threshold of extinction events that you're waiting for?  What will motivate you to believe that the problem we've been warned about and seen coming for decades is something worth addressing?

Our economy is largely to blame for the climate problems we're seeing.  It's not surprising that solutions impact the economy.  I've quite surprised that you're against carbon taxes . . . as that's one of the simplest way to encourage people and companies to behave properly - charge them some of the cost of the damage that they're doing.  You believe that more creative solutions are needed to deal with climate change?

OK.  Cool.  Let's hear them.

If you don't provide these solutions, but instead only try to tear down what people are currently working on . . .  you're just worsening the problem by perpetuating a status quo that has been failing for decades.

I'm not explaining my point of view very well.

I hear and read about people saying that climate change will doom us.   We've failed to fight climate change.  It's too late.   The end is nigh.  And so on.   

But I think we're far from doomed.   We're just starting to deal with climate change. 

As for the carbon tax, it's not that I'm against a carbon tax.   It's just way too small to have much effect.   I think if it were 10x what it is today, then it would have a meaningful impact, and I could get behind it.   In it's current incarnation it feels like a minor tax grab instead of meaningful climate action.

The actions people can take are to encourage climate friendly innovations.   Buy green electricity and electric cars.   Do things that reward companies for innovating in this space.   Don't elect politicians in favour of policies which will make climate change worse.   Hell, start a company to develop new energy storage technology.

It bugs me when people expect the government to do something, and then they complain about everything the government can do.   Carbon tax?   Green energy incentives?   It all takes money out of their pockets.   They want *someone else* to absorb the impact of fixing climate change.

When I read Scott Adams, bless his frozen little heart, I thought he was trying to make some of these points.    I rarely agree with him, so it caught me by surprise.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 01, 2019, 07:51:57 PM
1.  In what way do you believe that climate reporting is sensationalist?  The research that I've read is all pretty clear that we have an immediate and rapidly worsening problem.  To date there has been no technological breakthrough or advancement capable of pulling us out of this situation, and very little political will to make the changes necessary to stop it without.

2.  I'm generally in favour of nuclear plants myself, but think it is a mistake to view them as a panacea for all the world's problems.  There are issues related to waste storage, accidents (although exceedingly rare), and long term fuel supply.

3.  This reads as pure fantasy fiction to me, but I'd like to give you a better chance to explain.  Exactly how many years do you believe we have to adjust before we start to see significant impacts from climate change?  In the past 30 years, what successes in reversing human caused climate change are you aware of?

1.  Here's a sensationalist article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/)
The subtitle is
Quote
Once, this country led the global conversation that helped save the ozone layer. Now, in a climate crisis, we can’t even have an honest conversation among ourselves about what must be done to save us all

There are new ones every day.

The title of the article is sensational. The part you quoted is completely true ever since high ranking members of the Conservative party started denying that climate change is a real thing.  An honest conversation is difficult to have when one group has decided that it's politically expedient to tell people that they can be as wasteful as they want with no repercussions.



3.   Things are changing slowly.   Toronto is only 76m above sea level.   How long until downtown TO is flooded?   Low lying areas like New Orleans will have more immediate problems, but they are a small fraction of the total.    Two climate problems that have been addressed in the last 30 years are acid rain and ozone layer depletion.   

But those examples just prove my point.   Acid rain and ozone layer depletion were relatively small scope problems that could be addressed without a huge impact to our current economy.    More creative solutions than carbon taxes and other legislation are needed to deal with global climate change.

You didn't answer my questions.

The climate does change slowly.  But we've been observing these changes now for fifty years.  The ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 20 years.  That's a very fast change.  There are significant changes currently recorded in both the ocean and cryosphere (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf)).  Many of these changes have been measured since the 60s, 70s, and 80s.  They have all worsened over that period of time.

So I have to ask you again . . . exactly how many more years do you believe we have to adjust?  Will you wait until Toronto is under water before you decide that it's time to do something?  Or until there's no more polar ice cap?  Or is there a threshold of extinction events that you're waiting for?  What will motivate you to believe that the problem we've been warned about and seen coming for decades is something worth addressing?

Our economy is largely to blame for the climate problems we're seeing.  It's not surprising that solutions impact the economy.  I've quite surprised that you're against carbon taxes . . . as that's one of the simplest way to encourage people and companies to behave properly - charge them some of the cost of the damage that they're doing.  You believe that more creative solutions are needed to deal with climate change?

OK.  Cool.  Let's hear them.

If you don't provide these solutions, but instead only try to tear down what people are currently working on . . .  you're just worsening the problem by perpetuating a status quo that has been failing for decades.

I'm not explaining my point of view very well.

I hear and read about people saying that climate change will doom us.   We've failed to fight climate change.  It's too late.   The end is nigh.  And so on.   

But I think we're far from doomed.   We're just starting to deal with climate change. 

I think that the main concern is that we haven't started to deal with climate change in any appreciable way so far.  That's concerning given the significant and evident changes already measured.

It's certainly possible that if immediate action were to take place we can avoid doom.  The problem is that nobody's doing that.  Which rationally tends to lead to a more bleak outlook.  If we continue to do the same thing that we've been doing (virtually nothing) all evidence indicates that we are doomed.  That's not an argument to give up . . . it's a spur to finally start doing something.



As for the carbon tax, it's not that I'm against a carbon tax.   It's just way too small to have much effect.   I think if it were 10x what it is today, then it would have a meaningful impact, and I could get behind it.   In it's current incarnation it feels like a minor tax grab instead of meaningful climate action.

Not sure where this argument is coming from.  The carbon tax as implemented in Ontario redistributes all tax money to the people of Ontario.  So, if you don't pollute as much you end up making money from it.  If you do pollute more, you pay more.  How is that a tax grab?



The actions people can take are to encourage climate friendly innovations.   Buy green electricity and electric cars.   Do things that reward companies for innovating in this space.

The free market approach to climate change (as with pretty much every other environmental disaster that the free market has created) has been proven to be an utter failure.  Our system is currently setup to reward companies for short term thinking.  It doesn't matter if your actions today will cause huge problems in 100 years . . . if your business is likely not going to exist in 100 years.  Get rich now - fuck the distant future.  It's this free market mindset that got us into this mess.

Buying more shit is not a way out of the problems we largely caused by buying too much shit we didn't need to being with.  Especially when for every electric car sold we sell ten pickup trucks to people who use them for commuting.



It bugs me when people expect the government to do something, and then they complain about everything the government can do.   Carbon tax?   Green energy incentives?   It all takes money out of their pockets.   They want *someone else* to absorb the impact of fixing climate change.

This is why it's important that we continue to make climate change real to people by highlighting the risks and dangers.  Nobody's going to voluntarily give up something they like unless they understand and believe that the threat is real.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 01, 2019, 09:05:59 PM
https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/buying-property-is-emotional-tech-can-help-people-understand-their-homes-climate-risk/

Quote
People who already own a property with some flood risk might pay for more information.

We bought a report from Coastal Risk Consulting ($49), to assess risk on that glass-walled vacation home on the riverbank in Maryland. Owner Brian Rankin read through it.

“I’m looking at the first page, and I know right away that this is my property,” Rankin said. “You can see our dock, which juts into the river.”

When he gets to the page on tidal flooding, it predicts his property will deal with it pretty much every day by the year 2034. So what is he going to do next? 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on October 01, 2019, 10:33:40 PM
For those of you who do believe that climate apocalypse is indeed coming (soon):

Today I read about Deep Adaptation. That is a movement of people who believe that the climate apocalypse cannot be avoided anymore and that we better prepare for what awaits us, collapse of society as we know it.
I found a local facebook group with similarly thinking people.

I haven't heard that. I mean, anything we do at this point will simply blunt or mitigate the change, we can't prevent it at this point. Most species on the planet will not be able to "adapt" to this quick of a climate change, especially as environments and ecosystems are being used or degraded by human activities at the same time.
So, both will need to be done. We will need to figure out and implement reducing c02 emissions long term. We will also need to adapt to the changes that climate change will bring. As both of these things will mean a restriction in energy, foodstuffs and resources, they are not contradictory impulses. I just wish the US could figure a way to wean ourselves off our car habit...  That sad, I don't want me and my kids just to "survive". Existing is not good enough goal but a way we can move to sustaining cultures and societies that are less stressful on this planet.

The group isn't just about surviving, it is also about altering society to prepare for the new future. The goal is to still have a form of society, rather then everyone surviving for themselves. But it also about living the simple life, with lots of recycling habits and grow your own veggies.

I know myself I feel very wasteful the way I live. In part because I work while having 2 kids, I simply do not prepare food the way I would prefer (less packaging). I also feel the way I live is wasteful, in that once the kids grow up and move out, it will just be me with a house. Most likely as nature abhors a vacumn my sister will move in, and I will gain another semi-dependent. Sometimes I feel I should be open to something more radical. For example if my lot was big enough I think I would be OK living in a tiny house in the back and renting my actual house : ) But my yard is not big enough. I also daydream about making an apartment in the attic, but it seems like it would be too expensive for the return (80K).

You probably have a garden? Then you could plant some useful plants in it (fruit trees and such).
And maybe you can switch a car to an electrical car?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: partgypsy on October 02, 2019, 06:15:23 AM
For those of you who do believe that climate apocalypse is indeed coming (soon):

Today I read about Deep Adaptation. That is a movement of people who believe that the climate apocalypse cannot be avoided anymore and that we better prepare for what awaits us, collapse of society as we know it.
I found a local facebook group with similarly thinking people.

I haven't heard that. I mean, anything we do at this point will simply blunt or mitigate the change, we can't prevent it at this point. Most species on the planet will not be able to "adapt" to this quick of a climate change, especially as environments and ecosystems are being used or degraded by human activities at the same time.
So, both will need to be done. We will need to figure out and implement reducing c02 emissions long term. We will also need to adapt to the changes that climate change will bring. As both of these things will mean a restriction in energy, foodstuffs and resources, they are not contradictory impulses. I just wish the US could figure a way to wean ourselves off our car habit...  That sad, I don't want me and my kids just to "survive". Existing is not good enough goal but a way we can move to sustaining cultures and societies that are less stressful on this planet.

The group isn't just about surviving, it is also about altering society to prepare for the new future. The goal is to still have a form of society, rather then everyone surviving for themselves. But it also about living the simple life, with lots of recycling habits and grow your own veggies.

I know myself I feel very wasteful the way I live. In part because I work while having 2 kids, I simply do not prepare food the way I would prefer (less packaging). I also feel the way I live is wasteful, in that once the kids grow up and move out, it will just be me with a house. Most likely as nature abhors a vacumn my sister will move in, and I will gain another semi-dependent. Sometimes I feel I should be open to something more radical. For example if my lot was big enough I think I would be OK living in a tiny house in the back and renting my actual house : ) But my yard is not big enough. I also daydream about making an apartment in the attic, but it seems like it would be too expensive for the return (80K).

You probably have a garden? Then you could plant some useful plants in it (fruit trees and such).
And maybe you can switch a car to an electrical car?

Those are all good ideas. I have a small, very shady lot. The most I can grow is a few herbs and maybe a couple tomato and pepper plants in strategically placed pots. I just bought my car in 2016, decent fuel efficient (hatchback) so I don't anticipate switching out cars anytime soon. However where I live is very walkable so I do not need to fill up my tank every month (walk to work at least a couple times a week). For my electric bill I pay extra so it is renewable electricity (wind). I've already cut down on the amount of meat I eat, but am considering cutting down further, and basically try to eat more vegetables and beans versus things that are overly processed and packaged (this will be hard but worth it).  Due to a lot of personal things going on in life the past few years, my kids have still not learned how to ride bikes. So I also want to correct that.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Samuel on October 02, 2019, 10:00:07 AM
The free market approach to climate change (as with pretty much every other environmental disaster that the free market has created) has been proven to be an utter failure.  Our system is currently setup to reward companies for short term thinking.  It doesn't matter if your actions today will cause huge problems in 100 years . . . if your business is likely not going to exist in 100 years.  Get rich now - fuck the distant future.  It's this free market mindset that got us into this mess.

Buying more shit is not a way out of the problems we largely caused by buying too much shit we didn't need to being with.  Especially when for every electric car sold we sell ten pickup trucks to people who use them for commuting.

Knowing what I do about human nature I am much more optimistic about capitalism mitigating the problem than I am about the possibility of a global spiritual awakening where billions voluntarily abandon (often very recently acquired) comforts and conveniences for some nebulous greater good. Humans are even more short sighted than markets are, in general.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 02, 2019, 11:47:39 AM
Knowing what I do about human nature I am much more optimistic about capitalism mitigating the problem than I am about the possibility of a global spiritual awakening where billions voluntarily abandon (often very recently acquired) comforts and conveniences for some nebulous greater good. Humans are even more short sighted than markets are, in general.

I would personally put my money on something like a steady decline in standard of living building up to a giant French Revolution.  It doesn't take a whole lot of discomfort for the masses to decide following the rule of law and being a good member of the system isn't working.  Capitalism, as GuitarStv pointed out, is at the very root of the problem and will cease to exist as a result of catastrophic climate change.  It's not like credit cards and stock exchanges occur anywhere else in nature. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 02, 2019, 12:13:32 PM
Capitalism, as GuitarStv pointed out, is at the very root of the problem and will cease to exist as a result of catastrophic climate change.

Where exactly have you seen this work out to positive effect?

Capitalism isn't the problem; rather, unregulated capitalism is the problem. It will take time, but at some point the moral compass of the nation will decide that the current capitalistic solution (unregulated carbon emissions) needs to take a backseat to a regulated model (similar to how unregulated labor exploitation has been regulated, loosely starting with the elimination of slavery and continuing through the plethora of labor laws we have today).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2019, 02:19:10 PM
It will take time, but at some point the moral compass of the nation will decide that the current capitalistic solution (unregulated carbon emissions) needs to take a backseat to a regulated model (similar to how unregulated labor exploitation has been regulated, loosely starting with the elimination of slavery and continuing through the plethora of labor laws we have today).

The issue is that climate change is a big, relatively slow moving problem.  We've been ignoring it for more than 40 years as it has steadily worsened.  If we continue to wait, we may find ourselves in a position where we are beyond a solution.  At least a palatable solution.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 02, 2019, 02:44:15 PM
And to get the environmental equivalent of labour laws, what is needed? Are environmental issues up front and center and #1 priority for elections? Canada votes this month.  If the Conservatives do well we will have just said NO to environmental issues.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 02, 2019, 03:35:40 PM
It will take time, but at some point the moral compass of the nation will decide that the current capitalistic solution (unregulated carbon emissions) needs to take a backseat to a regulated model (similar to how unregulated labor exploitation has been regulated, loosely starting with the elimination of slavery and continuing through the plethora of labor laws we have today).

The issue is that climate change is a big, relatively slow moving problem.  We've been ignoring it for more than 40 years as it has steadily worsened.  If we continue to wait, we may find ourselves in a position where we are beyond a solution.  At least a palatable solution.

I don't disagree. But I believe change is coming, as the inculcated young replace the old, and that the winds of politics can change directions quickly given the appropriate demographic changes.

The more difficult challenge will be to convince individual people that they can be happy with less driving and less artificial climate control. I think the only solution is to amend the U.S. Constitution and vote in MMM for president.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 02, 2019, 05:23:49 PM
How long will it be before that Antarctic real estate is available?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 02, 2019, 06:35:22 PM
The free market approach to climate change (as with pretty much every other environmental disaster that the free market has created) has been proven to be an utter failure.  Our system is currently setup to reward companies for short term thinking.  It doesn't matter if your actions today will cause huge problems in 100 years . . . if your business is likely not going to exist in 100 years.  Get rich now - fuck the distant future.  It's this free market mindset that got us into this mess.

Buying more shit is not a way out of the problems we largely caused by buying too much shit we didn't need to being with.  Especially when for every electric car sold we sell ten pickup trucks to people who use them for commuting.

Knowing what I do about human nature I am much more optimistic about capitalism mitigating the problem than I am about the possibility of a global spiritual awakening where billions voluntarily abandon (often very recently acquired) comforts and conveniences for some nebulous greater good. Humans are even more short sighted than markets are, in general.

I personally one of these two things is true:

1: It's all really overblown and there is no climate crisis
2: Billions of people will starve to death, the global economy will collapse, and then, finally, emissions will decrease.

I'm not much for middle grounds on anything.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2019, 06:59:53 AM
The free market approach to climate change (as with pretty much every other environmental disaster that the free market has created) has been proven to be an utter failure.  Our system is currently setup to reward companies for short term thinking.  It doesn't matter if your actions today will cause huge problems in 100 years . . . if your business is likely not going to exist in 100 years.  Get rich now - fuck the distant future.  It's this free market mindset that got us into this mess.

Buying more shit is not a way out of the problems we largely caused by buying too much shit we didn't need to being with.  Especially when for every electric car sold we sell ten pickup trucks to people who use them for commuting.

Knowing what I do about human nature I am much more optimistic about capitalism mitigating the problem than I am about the possibility of a global spiritual awakening where billions voluntarily abandon (often very recently acquired) comforts and conveniences for some nebulous greater good. Humans are even more short sighted than markets are, in general.

I personally one of these two things is true:

1: It's all really overblown and there is no climate crisis
2: Billions of people will starve to death, the global economy will collapse, and then, finally, emissions will decrease.

I'm not much for middle grounds on anything.
why not the pleasant middle ground of thousands to millions of people will have earlier deaths but in places most Americans don't go so we won't care so much, at home possibly food and other item shortages due to breakdown of production chains, overall decreased quality of life (think Russia during collapse, frog in boiling water situation). The people who will have it worse, will have no power to do anything about it (remember the Africa famines in the 80's?) while people in other countries will have privations but as long as other people have it worse there will be bitching and moaning but no overt rioting. People will get really good at tuning out the mass suffering of others, whether it is hearing about what is going on in other countries or reading about population or mass die offs of other species. I think that is a more likely scenario.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 03, 2019, 07:12:24 AM
Global warming is a classic prisoner's dilemma.  As was already pointed out, most people are trying to improve their lot, and the wealthy that indulge ideas of reforming that process are thinking too wishfully, I suspect.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 03, 2019, 07:23:48 AM
Global warming is a classic prisoner's dilemma.  As was already pointed out, most people are trying to improve their lot, and the wealthy that indulge ideas of reforming that process are thinking too wishfully, I suspect.

You are absolutely right. The key is to try to change minds to the extent that someone can believe that they can still improve their lot while polluting a much smaller fraction of carbon. Part of this perceived improvement will have to be an acceptance of the fact that global warming is real, and our children will suffer measurable pain in the future if we don't get our act together.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2019, 07:30:53 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 03, 2019, 07:42:59 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.
I don't think capitalism as a financial/economic system is the issue, though.  It's fundamental human nature that's the problem, and capitalism just the symptom that has allowed human nature to create the current climate crisis.

I suppose you could say that socialism, perhaps as currently practised in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea is some sort of solution? Socialism as practised eg in the Nordic countries doesn't seem to be an answer as yet.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on October 03, 2019, 07:45:06 AM

I personally one of these two things is true:

1: It's all really overblown and there is no climate crisis
2: Billions of people will starve to death, the global economy will collapse, and then, finally, emissions will decrease.

I'm not much for middle grounds on anything.

Well, according to the scientists, it is not overblown at all and there is a crisis. You already see in the news that the north pole is melting more and more each year, the south pole has many water pools this year, gletsjers on Greenland and elsewhere are melting, coral reefs are dying. Lots and lots of species are red-listed and dying out.

So your option 1 is not the case.
I am personally afraid that option 2 will happen, but I hope the world will come to it's senses and try to avoid the worst part of the collaps. Stop or delay the warming up and maintain a form of civilization as long as possible. Adapt to the coming changes in a civilized way.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 03, 2019, 08:17:41 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.
I don't think capitalism as a financial/economic system is the issue, though.  It's fundamental human nature that's the problem, and capitalism just the symptom that has allowed human nature to create the current climate crisis.

I suppose you could say that socialism, perhaps as currently practised in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea is some sort of solution? Socialism as practised eg in the Nordic countries doesn't seem to be an answer as yet.
It's also hard to know how much wealth is needed for an individual or family.  It's a matter of diminishing returns, so there's no hard line, but you can definitely see at the extreme top end there are people competing for the most properties, or the highest net worth, or the greatest income.  At some point, the competition that drives innovation under capitalism rolls over into a numbers game pissing contest that operates at others' expense.  Not sure how to resolve that either, since it is human nature as you say.

Perhaps we can begin finding our worth in better indicators than material wealth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.
I don't think capitalism as a financial/economic system is the issue, though.  It's fundamental human nature that's the problem, and capitalism just the symptom that has allowed human nature to create the current climate crisis.

I suppose you could say that socialism, perhaps as currently practised in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea is some sort of solution? Socialism as practised eg in the Nordic countries doesn't seem to be an answer as yet.
It's also hard to know how much wealth is needed for an individual or family.  It's a matter of diminishing returns, so there's no hard line, but you can definitely see at the extreme top end there are people competing for the most properties, or the highest net worth, or the greatest income.  At some point, the competition that drives innovation under capitalism rolls over into a numbers game pissing contest that operates at others' expense.  Not sure how to resolve that either, since it is human nature as you say.

Perhaps we can begin finding our worth in better indicators than material wealth.

In the US, that's a pretty hard sell. Our brand of capitalism has spent generations teaching us that purchasing power = freedom = worth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 03, 2019, 09:32:51 AM
Capitalism, as GuitarStv pointed out, is at the very root of the problem and will cease to exist as a result of catastrophic climate change.

Where exactly have you seen this work out to positive effect?

Capitalism isn't the problem; rather, unregulated capitalism is the problem. It will take time, but at some point the moral compass of the nation will decide that the current capitalistic solution (unregulated carbon emissions) needs to take a backseat to a regulated model (similar to how unregulated labor exploitation has been regulated, loosely starting with the elimination of slavery and continuing through the plethora of labor laws we have today).

As soon as you say 'unregulated "XX" is the problem', you admit that "XX" is deeply flawed.  Taking the example of labor laws used to 'contain' unfettered capitalism, we are still fighting over how much power unions should have.  Capitalism is better than socialism at incentivizing people to be productive, but it directs those efforts toward maximizing profit and avoiding unproductive activity.  It also encourages 'winner takes all' behavior.  These are all counter to reducing CO2 emissions or solving climate change.

Politicians are being pretty smart with calling this "the Green New Deal".  Similar to the popular provisions of the New Deal, they are changing the system further away from capitalism to some new version of a capitalist-socialist system.  I just hope the necessarily radical shift toward socialism doesn't bog down in the details and leave us doing nothing or too little.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 03, 2019, 09:52:31 AM
^Very thoughtful take!

I remain curious to see whether the Green New Deal style shift will take root. Part of me wants to see it happen, but is doubtful.

Meanwhile, the whole carbon tax-and-dividend thing incentivizes virtually all actors to conserve carbon, without requiring any other substantial changes in society.

I'll accept whichever one people will agree to...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 03, 2019, 09:59:10 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.
I don't think capitalism as a financial/economic system is the issue, though.  It's fundamental human nature that's the problem, and capitalism just the symptom that has allowed human nature to create the current climate crisis.

I suppose you could say that socialism, perhaps as currently practised in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea is some sort of solution? Socialism as practised eg in the Nordic countries doesn't seem to be an answer as yet.
It's also hard to know how much wealth is needed for an individual or family.  It's a matter of diminishing returns, so there's no hard line, but you can definitely see at the extreme top end there are people competing for the most properties, or the highest net worth, or the greatest income.  At some point, the competition that drives innovation under capitalism rolls over into a numbers game pissing contest that operates at others' expense.  Not sure how to resolve that either, since it is human nature as you say.

Perhaps we can begin finding our worth in better indicators than material wealth.

In the US, that's a pretty hard sell. Our brand of capitalism has spent generations teaching us that purchasing power = freedom = worth.
It's true up to a point, around 50k per year or so is where increases in happiness start to stall out.  But you can even see it on this forum.  Some people like to have nannies and housekeepers.  Is that good for the environment?  How about working your ass off for ten years so you can retire off the back of The Machine?
I like to travel.  How much of the carbon burned on a flight is redeemed by learning about new cultures and ideally applying them to my own life?  Probably not enough.

Very difficult to draw hard lines around this stuff.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 03, 2019, 10:12:32 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.

Money isn't the end goal, though in a capitalistic society it might appear to be that way because of what it helps attain: power. You can look at all of the socialist schemes that have been developed, and many of them suffered from similar if not worse symptoms than capitalistic societies owing to an abuse of power. And those in power have an incentive to lie, regardless of the economic system in place.

Excellent comment by formerplayer. In Venezuela, until recently, you could fill up a truck's gas tank for less than a dollar. Putting climate change aside, do you think this was a good policy for the citizens of Venezuela? Or would a better policy allow for selling that oil at market prices, including within the country? Or some middle ground between the two? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/americas/price-of-gas-skyrockets-in-venezuela-to-38-cents-a-gallon.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/americas/price-of-gas-skyrockets-in-venezuela-to-38-cents-a-gallon.html)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2019, 10:43:20 AM
I simply don't have much hope for that ever occurring though . . . given that we are largely a capitalist society and there is a huge amount of money to be made lying to people about climate change not being real.  It's hard to convince someone to believe the truth when a more convenient lie makes their life easier in the short term.

Money isn't the end goal, though in a capitalistic society it might appear to be that way because of what it helps attain: power. You can look at all of the socialist schemes that have been developed, and many of them suffered from similar if not worse symptoms than capitalistic societies owing to an abuse of power. And those in power have an incentive to lie, regardless of the economic system in place.

Excellent comment by formerplayer. In Venezuela, until recently, you could fill up a truck's gas tank for less than a dollar. Putting climate change aside, do you think this was a good policy for the citizens of Venezuela? Or would a better policy allow for selling that oil at market prices, including within the country? Or some middle ground between the two? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/americas/price-of-gas-skyrockets-in-venezuela-to-38-cents-a-gallon.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/americas/price-of-gas-skyrockets-in-venezuela-to-38-cents-a-gallon.html)

Fuel use is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the world . . . to the tune of 4.7 trillion dollars a year globally (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509)).  Virtually every developed nation subsidizes fuel costs.  Including the US.

Subsidizing fuel costs is evidence of our shortsightedness . . . but I'd argue that market prices are also far too low.  The market doesn't take into account the massive costs we'll shoulder tomorrow by using the fuel today.  At least, it doesn't unless there's regulation to enforce that.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 03, 2019, 10:47:02 AM
Subsidizing fuel costs is evidence of our shortsightedness . . . but I'd argue that market prices are also far too low.  The market doesn't take into account the massive costs we'll shoulder tomorrow by using the fuel today.  At least, it doesn't unless there's regulation to enforce that.

Agreed. Subsidizing fossil fuel costs might have made sense at some point in the past, but it's long past time to reverse that script.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on October 03, 2019, 03:12:25 PM
Ain't it interesting that sometimes the same folks who rail against green tech subsidies choose to ignore fossil fuel subsidies?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 03, 2019, 04:52:52 PM
It seems some people think that scientists and public servants are pure, well intentioned people who would never be subject to hyperbole or group think, and that there isn’t some correlation between their priors and their career choices.

Some people are free market fundamentalists who believe the markets are the best way to make decisions, and everything else is a substandard Stalinist dystopia.

I think everyone is biased, some peeps are assholes, and I don’t trust anyone.

All to say I’m both a climate change skeptic and also a climate change prepper.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 03, 2019, 04:56:14 PM
To support my point with an anecdote...

I have a colleague who used to work for a Canadian oil company and said that most of the people there were indoctrinated to believe that since oil is naturally occurring, it’s renewable.

But of course, meteorologists, climate scientists, and Berkeley women’s studies majors would never have absurd beliefs en masse.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 03, 2019, 05:01:35 PM
To support my point with an anecdote...

I have a colleague who used to work for a Canadian oil company and said that most of the people there were indoctrinated to believe that since oil is naturally occurring, it’s renewable.

But of course, meteorologists, climate scientists, and Berkeley women’s studies majors would never have absurd beliefs en masse.

Well, under the proper geological circumstances, it is renewable - but since our climate is not the proper circumstances, and even if it were we would be looking at much too long a time scale for it to be of use to us, for all intents and purposes it is a non-renewable resource.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on October 03, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Gotta rag on those feminists.................

:/
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 03, 2019, 07:59:54 PM
1.  In what way do you believe that climate reporting is sensationalist?  The research that I've read is all pretty clear that we have an immediate and rapidly worsening problem.  To date there has been no technological breakthrough or advancement capable of pulling us out of this situation, and very little political will to make the changes necessary to stop it without.

2.  I'm generally in favour of nuclear plants myself, but think it is a mistake to view them as a panacea for all the world's problems.  There are issues related to waste storage, accidents (although exceedingly rare), and long term fuel supply.

3.  This reads as pure fantasy fiction to me, but I'd like to give you a better chance to explain.  Exactly how many years do you believe we have to adjust before we start to see significant impacts from climate change?  In the past 30 years, what successes in reversing human caused climate change are you aware of?

1.  Here's a sensationalist article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-meaningful-climate-action-in-canada-is-doomed/)
The subtitle is
Quote
Once, this country led the global conversation that helped save the ozone layer. Now, in a climate crisis, we can’t even have an honest conversation among ourselves about what must be done to save us all

There are new ones every day.

The title of the article is sensational. The part you quoted is completely true ever since high ranking members of the Conservative party started denying that climate change is a real thing.  An honest conversation is difficult to have when one group has decided that it's politically expedient to tell people that they can be as wasteful as they want with no repercussions.



3.   Things are changing slowly.   Toronto is only 76m above sea level.   How long until downtown TO is flooded?   Low lying areas like New Orleans will have more immediate problems, but they are a small fraction of the total.    Two climate problems that have been addressed in the last 30 years are acid rain and ozone layer depletion.   

But those examples just prove my point.   Acid rain and ozone layer depletion were relatively small scope problems that could be addressed without a huge impact to our current economy.    More creative solutions than carbon taxes and other legislation are needed to deal with global climate change.

You didn't answer my questions.

The climate does change slowly.  But we've been observing these changes now for fifty years.  The ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 20 years.  That's a very fast change.  There are significant changes currently recorded in both the ocean and cryosphere (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf (https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf)).  Many of these changes have been measured since the 60s, 70s, and 80s.  They have all worsened over that period of time.

So I have to ask you again . . . exactly how many more years do you believe we have to adjust?  Will you wait until Toronto is under water before you decide that it's time to do something?  Or until there's no more polar ice cap?  Or is there a threshold of extinction events that you're waiting for?  What will motivate you to believe that the problem we've been warned about and seen coming for decades is something worth addressing?

Our economy is largely to blame for the climate problems we're seeing.  It's not surprising that solutions impact the economy.  I've quite surprised that you're against carbon taxes . . . as that's one of the simplest way to encourage people and companies to behave properly - charge them some of the cost of the damage that they're doing.  You believe that more creative solutions are needed to deal with climate change?

OK.  Cool.  Let's hear them.

If you don't provide these solutions, but instead only try to tear down what people are currently working on . . .  you're just worsening the problem by perpetuating a status quo that has been failing for decades.

I'm not explaining my point of view very well.

I hear and read about people saying that climate change will doom us.   We've failed to fight climate change.  It's too late.   The end is nigh.  And so on.   

But I think we're far from doomed.   We're just starting to deal with climate change. 

I think that the main concern is that we haven't started to deal with climate change in any appreciable way so far.  That's concerning given the significant and evident changes already measured.

It's certainly possible that if immediate action were to take place we can avoid doom.  The problem is that nobody's doing that.  Which rationally tends to lead to a more bleak outlook.  If we continue to do the same thing that we've been doing (virtually nothing) all evidence indicates that we are doomed.  That's not an argument to give up . . . it's a spur to finally start doing something.



As for the carbon tax, it's not that I'm against a carbon tax.   It's just way too small to have much effect.   I think if it were 10x what it is today, then it would have a meaningful impact, and I could get behind it.   In it's current incarnation it feels like a minor tax grab instead of meaningful climate action.

Not sure where this argument is coming from.  The carbon tax as implemented in Ontario redistributes all tax money to the people of Ontario.  So, if you don't pollute as much you end up making money from it.  If you do pollute more, you pay more.  How is that a tax grab?



The actions people can take are to encourage climate friendly innovations.   Buy green electricity and electric cars.   Do things that reward companies for innovating in this space.

The free market approach to climate change (as with pretty much every other environmental disaster that the free market has created) has been proven to be an utter failure.  Our system is currently setup to reward companies for short term thinking.  It doesn't matter if your actions today will cause huge problems in 100 years . . . if your business is likely not going to exist in 100 years.  Get rich now - fuck the distant future.  It's this free market mindset that got us into this mess.

Buying more shit is not a way out of the problems we largely caused by buying too much shit we didn't need to being with.  Especially when for every electric car sold we sell ten pickup trucks to people who use them for commuting.



It bugs me when people expect the government to do something, and then they complain about everything the government can do.   Carbon tax?   Green energy incentives?   It all takes money out of their pockets.   They want *someone else* to absorb the impact of fixing climate change.

This is why it's important that we continue to make climate change real to people by highlighting the risks and dangers.  Nobody's going to voluntarily give up something they like unless they understand and believe that the threat is real.

I think we're just going to disagree on some stuff.    I see why you get so passionate when people downplay climate change though - it sends the wrong message.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: expatartist on October 03, 2019, 09:04:51 PM

One easy way to take your foot off the accelerator is to stop buying shit.

The US is directly responsible for 15% of emissions . . . but that number would be an awful lot higher if we calculated in all the stuff that is manufactured purely for US demand.  Just because you outsourced labor to countries without environmental protections doesn't mean all the pollution caused by your demand disappears.  Canada is exactly the same way (as is the UK).

Yea, no kidding. And then there's the scrap we ship to China for recycling. It’s amazing that our number is a whopping 15% before all the outsourcing we do. This is another reason the continued finger pointing at China and India is so frustrating. They have many times more people than the U.S., *and* they’re manufacturing and recycling our crap.

Yep. As a Chinese businessman told me, "We are the world's messy kitchen. The west is the dinner table." I'm happy China and other countries are no longer taking the world's rubbish, it's important for a country to be confronted with all the waste they produce.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2019, 10:14:17 PM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on October 03, 2019, 10:44:47 PM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 03, 2019, 11:44:56 PM
So my DW comes back from a last minute shopping trip to Walmart for her camping trip this weekend and says that there are a bunch of beautiful 'Christmas' pine trees in the parking lot marked 'free'.  I wish she had taken a picture, apparently these are beautiful, full trees of significant age (a tier a year, and probably 20 - 30 tiers).  We have no idea why they would be there, it is too early to have cut them for Christmas, but will hopefully be used for firewood or some reasonable purpose and not end up in a landfill.  Ugh.  It's moments like this, when you feel like you are doing OK and trying to be mindful and then some individual just takes a massive, indefensible, intentional crap on your paltry efforts.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on October 04, 2019, 02:15:54 AM
I have seen talk of energy subsides for fossil fuels. Where are these subsidies/ I live in Australia, and oil exploration companies are normal commercial entities. They pay company tax if they make a profit, they pay royalties to the government on oil pumped. Motorists pay excise on every litre of petrol (gas) they buy. Where are the subsidies?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 04, 2019, 03:43:20 AM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Fresh Bread on October 04, 2019, 03:58:20 AM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?

Apologies if those in the US already knew this, but the Vanguard Endowment Fund is a vehicle for rich people's philanthropy. I think you guys have some sort of system set up re donor accounts...? Vanguard doesn't get to choose where people send their money. I guess people send money from there to all sorts of undesirable bodies.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 04, 2019, 04:42:34 AM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?

Apologies if those in the US already knew this, but the Vanguard Endowment Fund is a vehicle for rich people's philanthropy. I think you guys have some sort of system set up re donor accounts...? Vanguard doesn't get to choose where people send their money. I guess people send money from there to all sorts of undesirable bodies.
But the money is funnelled through Vanguard, who are the people who send it on to the charity.  There is nothing to prevent Vanguard from having a policy that they will not send money to organisations that support climate change denial.  I'm guessing you wouldn't expect Vanguard to send money on to known racist organisations such as the KKK, would you?

Actually, there should be a rule that climate change denial organisations shouldn't have the tax advantages of charitable status, but US politics doesn't seem likely to go there at the moment.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: partgypsy on October 04, 2019, 05:34:18 AM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?

Apologies if those in the US already knew this, but the Vanguard Endowment Fund is a vehicle for rich people's philanthropy. I think you guys have some sort of system set up re donor accounts...? Vanguard doesn't get to choose where people send their money. I guess people send money from there to all sorts of undesirable bodies.
But the money is funnelled through Vanguard, who are the people who send it on to the charity.  There is nothing to prevent Vanguard from having a policy that they will not send money to organisations that support climate change denial.  I'm guessing you wouldn't expect Vanguard to send money on to known racist organisations such as the KKK, would you?

Actually, there should be a rule that climate change denial organisations shouldn't have the tax advantages of charitable status, but US politics doesn't seem likely to go there at the moment.

I agree.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Fresh Bread on October 04, 2019, 05:41:26 AM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?

Apologies if those in the US already knew this, but the Vanguard Endowment Fund is a vehicle for rich people's philanthropy. I think you guys have some sort of system set up re donor accounts...? Vanguard doesn't get to choose where people send their money. I guess people send money from there to all sorts of undesirable bodies.
But the money is funnelled through Vanguard, who are the people who send it on to the charity.  There is nothing to prevent Vanguard from having a policy that they will not send money to organisations that support climate change denial.  I'm guessing you wouldn't expect Vanguard to send money on to known racist organisations such as the KKK, would you?

Actually, there should be a rule that climate change denial organisations shouldn't have the tax advantages of charitable status, but US politics doesn't seem likely to go there at the moment.

I agree.

I guess it would be seen as political in the US since it is still up for debate so they wouldn't go near it. (As it still seems to be here). Be interesting to know what the general policy is if they have one. Couldn't find it when I was googling earlier.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Papa bear on October 04, 2019, 06:11:11 AM
I have seen talk of energy subsides for fossil fuels. Where are these subsidies/ I live in Australia, and oil exploration companies are normal commercial entities. They pay company tax if they make a profit, they pay royalties to the government on oil pumped. Motorists pay excise on every litre of petrol (gas) they buy. Where are the subsidies?

At least in the US, people used to say the DPAD deduction, which gave a small deduction for things manufactured domestically, was a subsidy for oil. But it was available to every company that made things in the US. (This is no longer a deduction).  Outside of that, I do not know of any subsidies directly for fossil fuels.

I’ve brought up this question before, but I have never seen an answer.  The transportation industry is subsidized with road and bridge construction, but that isn’t direct to fossil fuels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 04, 2019, 06:35:15 AM
You need to discover google, Papa Bear.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs#1

There are others but that's a start.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 04, 2019, 08:30:20 PM
You need to discover google, Papa Bear.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs#1

There are others but that's a start.
It's probably important to note that the ~$5B/year in fossil fuel subsidies is on $300B/year in US domestic fossil fuel-based energy production. Subsidies exist but they are not significant in comparison to the size of the market.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 04, 2019, 11:15:19 PM
If $5 billion isn't significant, please give me the first $5 billion of your wealth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: marty998 on October 05, 2019, 03:49:42 AM
If $5 billion isn't significant, please give me the first $5 billion of your wealth.

Mmmhmm... If the recipient companies of that $5bn make $5bn in profit, do the executives deserve their bonuses? After all, they'd be break even without the subsidies....

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 05, 2019, 08:00:26 AM
If $5 billion isn't significant, please give me the first $5 billion of your wealth.

Mmmhmm... If the recipient companies of that $5bn make $5bn in profit, do the executives deserve their bonuses? After all, they'd be break even without the subsidies....
I'm of course not in favor of those subsidies and elsewhere pointed out I support a carbon tax--but to use an analogy, elephants aren't heavy because of a few oxpeckers perched on their backs. Here (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39413) is what US oil producers make in net profits. It's not clear what operating profits are, but assuming a modest effective tax rate, it could be $30-35B.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2019, 08:32:02 AM
So 1/7th to 1/8th of their net profit is government subsidy?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 05, 2019, 08:50:04 AM
Obviously yes, although their overall profits are much more sensitive to the price of oil than to a change in subsidy level. The subsidies result in more US production than would otherwise occur, which has complicated impacts on total greenhouse gas emissions. On the one hand, natural gas co-production at wells increases supply and hastens the decline of coal's share of electrical power production, while natural gas leakage from wells is of course a negative outcome. US energy-related CO2 emissions are down ~14% from its peak in 2007 (and CO2 per $ of real GDP is down ~26% from 2007).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2019, 09:23:00 AM
Simply pointing out that that's a rather heavy 'oxpecker' weighing in at 1/7th what the elephant does.  A substantial amount of the profitability of these companies comes from government subsidy, it doesn't make any kind of sense to dismiss this hand-out.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 05, 2019, 09:50:44 AM
$5B in subsidies on 4.5B barrels of annualized US oil production means that subsidies may depress the price of oil ~$1.10/barrel. Without subsidies, oil production would be marginally lower and prices marginally higher; subsidy elimination would tend to drive the most marginal and least profitable producers out of the market, so it's not clear that total industry profits would decline by very much. Compared to the back-of-envelope $1.10 subsidy impact, the market price of WTI oil has fluctuated over a range of $10 within the last 30 days.

Burning a barrel of oil produces 0.43 metric tons of CO2. This bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763) sets a starting carbon price at $15 per metric ton, which would be $6.45 per barrel, with subsequent increases of $4.30 per barrel per year. Those are the levels at which economic incentives will trigger large-scale changes in consumption patterns. That's what I was getting at with the $1 oxpecker; sorry if that wasn't clear.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 05, 2019, 11:38:15 AM
Hmmmmmm - This is not a climate related comment.  If these guys didn't get the subsidies, I guess their costs would be higher.  It was said that it would drive the producers on the margins out.  I've read it is more expensive to produce oil in North America including the tar sands.  If subsidies were reduced, would it give a benefit to foreign producers and thus raise their sales in North America?

I don't think cutting subsidies would do a whole lot to cut usage.  At least not for quite a while until prices spike again.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 06, 2019, 10:14:30 AM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?

Apologies if those in the US already knew this, but the Vanguard Endowment Fund is a vehicle for rich people's philanthropy. I think you guys have some sort of system set up re donor accounts...? Vanguard doesn't get to choose where people send their money. I guess people send money from there to all sorts of undesirable bodies.
But the money is funnelled through Vanguard, who are the people who send it on to the charity.  There is nothing to prevent Vanguard from having a policy that they will not send money to organisations that support climate change denial.  I'm guessing you wouldn't expect Vanguard to send money on to known racist organisations such as the KKK, would you?

Actually, there should be a rule that climate change denial organisations shouldn't have the tax advantages of charitable status, but US politics doesn't seem likely to go there at the moment.

I agree.

I guess it would be seen as political in the US since it is still up for debate so they wouldn't go near it. (As it still seems to be here). Be interesting to know what the general policy is if they have one. Couldn't find it when I was googling earlier.

is that a thing?   Anti-science groups (anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and so on) aren't eligible for charitable organization status?

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Fresh Bread on October 06, 2019, 02:07:42 PM
The international rebellion starts today! I'm joining in as I feel like this is a last ditch effort to make necessary changes. Anyone else on the streets today*?

* Although my very first action is on a boat ;)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05Kr2gnD9B_2zFM2bt5vG9m6xr8723iovVxVFvIeJiTXXJpQRKB_MIjpM#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

I noticed that the Vanguard charitable endowment program is one of the sponsors.
Does that mean that most people of this site are indirectly sponsoring it?

It did indeed have to be such an organized thing, like what the smoking and the sugar industry did/are doing. And in the mean time, the planet becomes inrepairable...
Apparently the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program has contributed $13.1m to climate change countermovement organisations.  Perhaps MMM could be encouraged to weigh in on this?  @arebelspy , can you put this to him?

Apologies if those in the US already knew this, but the Vanguard Endowment Fund is a vehicle for rich people's philanthropy. I think you guys have some sort of system set up re donor accounts...? Vanguard doesn't get to choose where people send their money. I guess people send money from there to all sorts of undesirable bodies.
But the money is funnelled through Vanguard, who are the people who send it on to the charity.  There is nothing to prevent Vanguard from having a policy that they will not send money to organisations that support climate change denial.  I'm guessing you wouldn't expect Vanguard to send money on to known racist organisations such as the KKK, would you?

Actually, there should be a rule that climate change denial organisations shouldn't have the tax advantages of charitable status, but US politics doesn't seem likely to go there at the moment.

I agree.

I guess it would be seen as political in the US since it is still up for debate so they wouldn't go near it. (As it still seems to be here). Be interesting to know what the general policy is if they have one. Couldn't find it when I was googling earlier.

is that a thing?   Anti-science groups (anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and so on) aren't eligible for charitable organization status?

No.  Would be tricky to implement too.  No churches would be eligible for charitable organization status . . . as they all demand belief absent (sometimes in spite of) proof.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 06, 2019, 02:50:50 PM
The international rebellion starts today! I'm joining in as I feel like this is a last ditch effort to make necessary changes. Anyone else on the streets today*?
For reference, historically change is effected when a protest group shuts down traffic in a city centre, shutting down commerce and government for some months. See for example the various Colour Revolutions, or the ongoing struggles in Hong Kong.

Are you prepared to camp out in front of parliament for, say, three months?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 06, 2019, 03:35:17 PM
Aren’t a lot (not all) of what is reported as a subsidy really normal deductions for depreciation and other expenses, that all businesses can use if they have capital assets or commodity reserves?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 06, 2019, 03:47:39 PM

is that a thing?   Anti-science groups (anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and so on) aren't eligible for charitable organization status?

No.  Would be tricky to implement too.  No churches would be eligible for charitable organization status . . . as they all demand belief absent (sometimes in spite of) proof.
The idea is that charitable status has as it basis the idea that a charity is carrying out acts for the good of society as a whole - the relief of poverty, the provision of education, and so on, and that in return the charity is granted favourable legal and financial status by the state.

Climate change deniers are not acting for the good of society as a whole, and do not deserve charitable status.  That doesn't prevent them from existing, or from spreading their pernicious message, it just means that the state is not helping them to do it.  The KKK survives without state support, so can the climate change deniers.

Religion has been considered to be charitable in itself in English charity law since medieval times.  One might argue otherwise these days, of course.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Fresh Bread on October 06, 2019, 03:53:51 PM
The international rebellion starts today! I'm joining in as I feel like this is a last ditch effort to make necessary changes. Anyone else on the streets today*?
For reference, historically change is effected when a protest group shuts down traffic in a city centre, shutting down commerce and government for some months. See for example the various Colour Revolutions, or the ongoing struggles in Hong Kong.

Are you prepared to camp out in front of parliament for, say, three months?

You know full well we don't have the numbers in Australia. I could do that tho, yes, I'm almost retired. We are working off research that says we need 3.5% of the population to be active to effect change.

Ok I'm off to be active, have a great day!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 06, 2019, 09:05:31 PM
You could actually shut down Flinders St station with about 1,000 people; 150,000 people pass through there each day. Another thousand at Melbourne Central and a few thousand in between blocking off Swanston, and that's the city closed off to over half its workers. At most 10,000 people in all. Or the same number of people could occupy Parliament. This is far fewer than 3.5% of the population of Melbourne.

The question is whether you could persuade them to stay there for three months. It's not just a weekend with 3.5% and done, it's 3.5% keeping it up day after day for months. Essentially it's the difference between trying to effect social change as a hobby and doing it as a profession. At the moment the closest we have to professional protestors in Australia is first and second year Arts students, but they tend to have a different cause every weekend, from Israel vs Palestine (protests with neither Israelis nor Arabs at them) one weekend, climate change another, veganism yet another, and so on; historically the left is quite diffuse.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Leisured on October 07, 2019, 03:26:12 AM
Aren’t a lot (not all) of what is reported as a subsidy really normal deductions for depreciation and other expenses, that all businesses can use if they have capital assets or commodity reserves?

Yes, that was my point in Reply 204.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 07, 2019, 07:12:55 AM

is that a thing?   Anti-science groups (anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and so on) aren't eligible for charitable organization status?

No.  Would be tricky to implement too.  No churches would be eligible for charitable organization status . . . as they all demand belief absent (sometimes in spite of) proof.
The idea is that charitable status has as it basis the idea that a charity is carrying out acts for the good of society as a whole - the relief of poverty, the provision of education, and so on, and that in return the charity is granted favourable legal and financial status by the state.

Climate change deniers are not acting for the good of society as a whole, and do not deserve charitable status.  That doesn't prevent them from existing, or from spreading their pernicious message, it just means that the state is not helping them to do it.  The KKK survives without state support, so can the climate change deniers.

Religion has been considered to be charitable in itself in English charity law since medieval times.  One might argue otherwise these days, of course.

Not to take this down a rabbit hole . . . but the whole concept of 'charity' as it applies to churches is pretty messed up.  The majority of the expenses that most churches have relate to the operation of their private club - the church itself.  As a matter of fact, churches can claim tax exempt status with zero charitable contributions whatsoever - they're not required to file taxes or prove any amount of charity to get this status.

I agree with you . . . climate change deniers are not acting for the good of society as a whole, and do not deserve charitable status.  But I'd argue that the many churches involved in preaching that homosexuality is a sin, that hide and protect pedophiles, that preach against contraception, attempt to enforce a blanket ban on abortion . . . these actions all actively damage society as a whole.  No state should be supporting this via tax exempt status.  We have given up the medieval practices of bloodletting and attempting to cure disease through balancing of humours.  We need to give up on the medieval belief that organized religion is beneficial to society.  As it stands right now, climate change deniers just need to say that they're a religion and their tax exempt status immediately becomes iron-clad and immutable.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 07, 2019, 03:45:53 PM

is that a thing?   Anti-science groups (anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and so on) aren't eligible for charitable organization status?

No.  Would be tricky to implement too.  No churches would be eligible for charitable organization status . . . as they all demand belief absent (sometimes in spite of) proof.
The idea is that charitable status has as it basis the idea that a charity is carrying out acts for the good of society as a whole - the relief of poverty, the provision of education, and so on, and that in return the charity is granted favourable legal and financial status by the state.

Climate change deniers are not acting for the good of society as a whole, and do not deserve charitable status.  That doesn't prevent them from existing, or from spreading their pernicious message, it just means that the state is not helping them to do it.  The KKK survives without state support, so can the climate change deniers.

Religion has been considered to be charitable in itself in English charity law since medieval times.  One might argue otherwise these days, of course.

Not to take this down a rabbit hole . . . but the whole concept of 'charity' as it applies to churches is pretty messed up.  The majority of the expenses that most churches have relate to the operation of their private club - the church itself.  As a matter of fact, churches can claim tax exempt status with zero charitable contributions whatsoever - they're not required to file taxes or prove any amount of charity to get this status.

I agree with you . . . climate change deniers are not acting for the good of society as a whole, and do not deserve charitable status.  But I'd argue that the many churches involved in preaching that homosexuality is a sin, that hide and protect pedophiles, that preach against contraception, attempt to enforce a blanket ban on abortion . . . these actions all actively damage society as a whole.  No state should be supporting this via tax exempt status.  We have given up the medieval practices of bloodletting and attempting to cure disease through balancing of humours.  We need to give up on the medieval belief that organized religion is beneficial to society.  As it stands right now, climate change deniers just need to say that they're a religion and their tax exempt status immediately becomes iron-clad and immutable.

Yeah, the idea of revisiting the definition of a charitable organization is very appealing.   In Canada the definition is:

Quote
Registered charities
Registered charities are charitable organizations, public foundations, or private foundations that are created and resident in Canada. They must use their resources for charitable activities and have charitable purposes that fall into one or more of the following categories:

the relief of poverty
the advancement of education
the advancement of religion
other purposes that benefit the community

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/about-registered-charities/what-difference-between-a-registered-charity-a-non-profit-organization.html (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/about-registered-charities/what-difference-between-a-registered-charity-a-non-profit-organization.html)

I'm fine with #1,2 and 4, but not so sure about the advancement of religion.   
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 07, 2019, 04:28:34 PM
Yeah, the idea of revisiting the definition of a charitable organization is very appealing.   In Canada the definition is:

Quote
Registered charities
Registered charities are charitable organizations, public foundations, or private foundations that are created and resident in Canada. They must use their resources for charitable activities and have charitable purposes that fall into one or more of the following categories:

the relief of poverty
the advancement of education
the advancement of religion
other purposes that benefit the community

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/about-registered-charities/what-difference-between-a-registered-charity-a-non-profit-organization.html (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/about-registered-charities/what-difference-between-a-registered-charity-a-non-profit-organization.html)

I'm fine with #1,2 and 4, but not so sure about the advancement of religion.
Those are the standard categories of charitable purposes in English/Commonwealth law. They come direct from the Statute of Elizabeth of 1601, so they are over 400 years old.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 07, 2019, 06:28:32 PM
On the one side is that fact that churches may not be fully aligned with what some consider today's societal norms, but
on the other side throughout history they have often been the only force in many societies helping the poor, curing the sick and feeding the hungry.  In today's times of plenty these good practices are easily forgotten.

And, I'm not even religious.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 07, 2019, 06:36:52 PM
The international rebellion starts today! I'm joining in as I feel like this is a last ditch effort to make necessary changes. Anyone else on the streets today*?
For reference, historically change is effected when a protest group shuts down traffic in a city centre, shutting down commerce and government for some months. See for example the various Colour Revolutions, or the ongoing struggles in Hong Kong.

Are you prepared to camp out in front of parliament for, say, three months?

You know full well we don't have the numbers in Australia. I could do that tho, yes, I'm almost retired. We are working off research that says we need 3.5% of the population to be active to effect change.

Ok I'm off to be active, have a great day!
300K global "supporters" on Facebook but need almost 1M just in Aus by your logic (I'm assuming your specific cause is tied to the Extinction Rebellion, which does have an interesting set of ideas behind it). There is a bit more thought behind some of it than I initially expected, since protesting is generally >90% virtue-signalling (i.e. noise) and <10% signal (i.e. tangible, coherent objectives).

I'm speaking from a specific vantage-point here, of course, when I say that such protests would probably be better directed in favor of a carbon tax than an unrealistic goal of zero net carbon by 2025. I'm also puzzled by one article I skimmed how the yellow-vests offered some level of support in France to the XR when the YV movement cites energy taxation as one of its impetuses. For some clarification on the cognitive dissonance, I did find this.:

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....

But it's hard to take much of this very seriously when the unifying underlying message is merely I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 07, 2019, 11:52:47 PM
I found this news-story to be mildly encouraging - https://www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle-sunday/20191006/282024739007626

Quote
On land, the wind boom already is well established. By next year, 9 percent of the country’s electricity is expected to come from wind power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The wind industry already claims 114,000 jobs, more than twice the number of jobs remaining in U.S. coal mining.

But despite the steady gales of condemnation from the country’s wind-hater in chief, wind is booming most strongly in states that voted for Trump.  Then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, now Trump’s energy secretary, pushed his state to one of the current top four wind power states, along with Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Linea_Norway on October 08, 2019, 12:47:29 AM
I found this news-story to be mildly encouraging - https://www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle-sunday/20191006/282024739007626

Quote
On land, the wind boom already is well established. By next year, 9 percent of the country’s electricity is expected to come from wind power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The wind industry already claims 114,000 jobs, more than twice the number of jobs remaining in U.S. coal mining.

But despite the steady gales of condemnation from the country’s wind-hater in chief, wind is booming most strongly in states that voted for Trump.  Then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, now Trump’s energy secretary, pushed his state to one of the current top four wind power states, along with Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa.

And if we could only lower our total need for electricity in general, then the percentage clean energy could even bigger.

Like blockchain technology. Interesting technology, but it is one of the many new things using up large amounts of energy.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 06:24:02 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 08, 2019, 07:39:30 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on October 08, 2019, 08:57:59 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

This. Crowing "hypocrisy" and then dismissing any climate activist who ever uses a fossil fuel is just lazy thinking. We need to deal with the infrastructure that got us here.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 08, 2019, 09:44:18 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

This. Crowing "hypocrisy" and then dismissing any climate activist who ever uses a fossil fuel is just lazy thinking. We need to deal with the infrastructure that got us here.

The criticism was not because he uses fossil fuel, it was because he joined a protest against a tax on fossil fuels.

Not taking a side, just saying.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 08, 2019, 09:47:48 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

This. Crowing "hypocrisy" and then dismissing any climate activist who ever uses a fossil fuel is just lazy thinking. We need to deal with the infrastructure that got us here.

The criticism was not because he uses fossil fuel, it was because he joined a protest against a tax on fossil fuels.

Not taking a side, just saying.

Right.

But why did he join the protest?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on October 08, 2019, 09:58:05 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

This. Crowing "hypocrisy" and then dismissing any climate activist who ever uses a fossil fuel is just lazy thinking. We need to deal with the infrastructure that got us here.

The criticism was not because he uses fossil fuel, it was because he joined a protest against a tax on fossil fuels.

Not taking a side, just saying.

Ah. Dammit, sorry, I misread that. I think maybe I've had too much coffee this morning. (And I have also been seeing a lot of "any climate activist who has ever flown in a plane or driven a car is a hypocrite!" posts lately, so I may be on a hair trigger, lol!)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 10:13:13 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

This. Crowing "hypocrisy" and then dismissing any climate activist who ever uses a fossil fuel is just lazy thinking. We need to deal with the infrastructure that got us here.

Yes, I think I can rightfully crow hypocrisy* here. I'm not dismissing him because he used fossil fuels ever, I'm dismissing him because he is a self-proclaimed "militant ecologist" but yet seems more to me like a militant politician. You don't even need to be a militant ecologist to realize that, in order for the world to reduce carbon pollution, there must be some pain. Now, I'm not saying that improvements can't be made in the implementation of that law (including how the revenues are spent), but let's look at this from a different angle. If the U.S. Congress passed a law that jacked up the price of gasoline by less than 40¢ per gallon, I'd be ecstatic, because we're finally doing something, even if it may be painful for a lot of people (and of course the revenues should be structured to help minimize that pain). I wouldn't at all be surprised if people started rioting in the streets. However, if Al Gore (or any other self-branded "militant ecologist") joined the protesters because the implementation of a carbon tax wasn't perfectly executed, he should rightfully be mocked as a hypocrite.

(Also keep in mind that economic inequality in France is substantially lower than in the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#/media/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report.svg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#/media/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report.svg).)

Reminds me of the Whiskey Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)), and a contrasting politician's response to it.

*That was the word I was looking for! :)

ETA: Apologies for the lengthy reply when Dabnasty already gave us the courtesy of succinctness with a similar response.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 08, 2019, 10:14:30 AM
The international rebellion starts today! I'm joining in as I feel like this is a last ditch effort to make necessary changes. Anyone else on the streets today*?
For reference, historically change is effected when a protest group shuts down traffic in a city centre, shutting down commerce and government for some months. See for example the various Colour Revolutions, or the ongoing struggles in Hong Kong.

Are you prepared to camp out in front of parliament for, say, three months?

You know full well we don't have the numbers in Australia. I could do that tho, yes, I'm almost retired. We are working off research that says we need 3.5% of the population to be active to effect change.

Ok I'm off to be active, have a great day!
300K global "supporters" on Facebook but need almost 1M just in Aus by your logic (I'm assuming your specific cause is tied to the Extinction Rebellion, which does have an interesting set of ideas behind it). There is a bit more thought behind some of it than I initially expected, since protesting is generally >90% virtue-signalling (i.e. noise) and <10% signal (i.e. tangible, coherent objectives).

I'm speaking from a specific vantage-point here, of course, when I say that such protests would probably be better directed in favor of a carbon tax than an unrealistic goal of zero net carbon by 2025. I'm also puzzled by one article I skimmed how the yellow-vests offered some level of support in France to the XR when the YV movement cites energy taxation as one of its impetuses. For some clarification on the cognitive dissonance, I did find this.:

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....

But it's hard to take much of this very seriously when the unifying underlying message is merely I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!.

I think this is a relevant point from the article:

Quote
Of the 34 billion euros, or $39 billion, that the French government is expected to raise this year from the fuel tax, less than a fourth is earmarked for measures that could help people of modest means transition to less-polluting transportation, said Daniel M. Kammen, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in energy policy.

I'd be interested to know where the rest of the money would have gone but it certainly sounds like they could have directed more of it towards alternative transportation. I don't know enough to say whether Mr. Picard's position is a reasonable one but even if 100% of revenue went toward alternative transportation, would that have stopped the protests?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 10:30:15 AM
I'd be interested to know where the rest of the money would have gone but it certainly sounds like they could have directed more of it towards alternative transportation. I don't know enough to say whether Mr. Picard's position is a reasonable one but even if 100% of revenue went toward alternative transportation, would that have stopped the protests?

From what I've read, it is being used to reduce the budget deficit. This is an indirect return of the money to the people, in the form of reducing future taxes. (Of course, it might all be a shell game, similar to lottery revenues going to the schools but tax revenues to the schools decreasing by similar amounts.)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 10:58:47 AM
Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

Would not taxing carbon accomplish the bolded for cars?

In my experience, there are often plenty of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, at least in an urban environment (in my city, bike trails and buses and commuter trains galore). People choose not to use them typically because cars are more convenient, in the sense of 'hopping in to my luxurious moving couch and going where I want as quickly as I can go'. I sympathize. But you can't get around the fact that reducing the risks from global warming will have to cause pain and inconvenience.

For the rural dwellers, they are much more dependent on carbon, and I don't think there's any way around this. But most rural dwellers, such as our pastry chef who drives (presumably) into the city every day, don't need a train station in their hamlet, they need to move closer to the train station.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 08, 2019, 11:42:33 AM
Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

Would not taxing carbon accomplish the bolded for cars?

In my experience, there are often plenty of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, at least in an urban environment (in my city, bike trails and buses and commuter trains galore). People choose not to use them typically because cars are more convenient, in the sense of 'hopping in to my luxurious moving couch and going where I want as quickly as I can go'. I sympathize. But you can't get around the fact that reducing the risks from global warming will have to cause pain and inconvenience.

For the rural dwellers, they are much more dependent on carbon, and I don't think there's any way around this. but most rural dwellers, such as our pastry chef who drives (presumably) into the city every day, don't need a train station in their hamlet, they need to move closer to the train station.

I guess it depends a lot on where you live. In my former area the right of way that used to be train tracks to take rural people in to Ottawa is now a walking path. So there used to be rural train service to Ottawa, but it is gone. The right of way is still there, something could be put into place.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 08, 2019, 12:08:55 PM
Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

Would not taxing carbon accomplish the bolded for cars?

Yes.  But if there's no good alternative then what ends up happening is increased misery for the poor, a middle class who shrug and absorb the increased costs without changing their spending patterns, and an upper class who are just as happy to keep jetting around the world not giving a fuck.



In my experience, there are often plenty of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, at least in an urban environment (in my city, bike trails and buses and commuter trains galore). People choose not to use them typically because cars are more convenient, in the sense of 'hopping in to my luxurious moving couch and going where I want as quickly as I can go'. I sympathize. But you can't get around the fact that reducing the risks from global warming will have to cause pain and inconvenience.

I live in an urban area.  To get from my house to work (11 miles one way) I've got the following options:

Drive my car - 25 to 60 minutes (Depending on traffic, snow, rain, construction).  Somehow, this is our gold standard.  I'd include carpooling and taking a taxi/uber in this same category.
Ride my bike - 40 minutes (I'm in good shape, and an experienced cyclist who is comfortable riding in busy city traffic and in pouring rain/snow.  Requires a shower at work.)
Take public transit - 120 to 180 minutes (Three bus transfers and a subway ride, or five bus transfers).
Walk - 210 minutes according to Google maps.


Alternatives do exist . . . but the only one that really seems competitive at all is cycling.  And cycling is only competitive because I'm in pretty good shape, and have showers at work.  Google maps estimates that cycling will take an hour and twenty minutes for the same route.  If you don't have showers at work, you may well lose your job by coming in to a customer facing job sweaty and stinky in the summer.  If you aren't comfortable cycling around heavy traffic, you will simply not be able to make the trip.  (There exists only about two hundred feet of bike lane in the 11 miles to my work.)

Don't get me wrong . . . I'd encourage folks to bike every time.  But there are very valid reasons why someone might not be able to do so.  If we built a sensible network of bike lanes, plowed the bike lanes in the winter (currently snow is plowed into bike lanes, forcing cyclists into the roadway), and educated drivers so that things aren't so dangerous for cyclists it would probably go a long way towards increasing the numbers of cyclists on the road.  We don't though - these solutions cost money, and nobody wants to spend money on cycling.  It's tied up maintaining our infrastructure of roads.

Public transit and walking are really not an option at all due to the time that you would lose each day.  Just in Canada, we spend fifteen and a half billion dollars a year on road work - more twice as much as every other type of transportation combined http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf (http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf).  Our public transit sucks because we aren't willing to spend the money to both build the transit that is necessary . . . and to pay to operate it.  This is a failure of the officials we have elected to government.



For the rural dwellers, they are much more dependent on carbon, and I don't think there's any way around this. but most rural dwellers, such as our pastry chef who drives (presumably) into the city every day, don't need a train station in their hamlet, they need to move closer to the train station.

My dad owns and operates a farm, in the middle of farm land.  The nearest town to him is about a twenty minute drive.  He is dependent upon an automobile as long as he keeps farming . . . because that is literally the only system that is in place there.  A train wouldn't help him or any of his neighbours get to and from the town to buy groceries.  Even a busing system would be difficult to implement, but I have some small hope that pooled autonomous car resources might be able to more efficiently move people around in this type of setting.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 12:43:15 PM
Sounds like your options blow. For comparison, my 20-mile one-way commute can be done in either 40-60 min by car, 1 hr 20 min by bike (plus 10 min shower at work), or 1 hr 10 min by bus (with a roughly 8 min bike ride from my house to the bus).

As for your dad (or any other rural dweller), I think we are on the same page, there's no getting around using a car for personal transportation for the foreseeable future. But the rural population that actually requires a rural environment to sustain their occupation should be no more than about 5-10% of the population. Their transportation costs do not have a big effect on overall carbon pollution, and if the market cannot sustain the increases in price of food due to a carbon tax, we could always increase farming subsidies to offset the higher costs.

Public transit and walking are really not an option at all due to the time that you would lose each day.  Just in Canada, we spend fifteen and a half billion dollars a year on road work - more twice as much as every other type of transportation combined http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf (http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf).  Our public transit sucks because we aren't willing to spend the money to both build the transit that is necessary . . . and to pay to operate it.  This is a failure of the officials we have elected to government.

My only quibble: How is this a failure of the elected officials? Did they promise to divert some of the road infrastructure budget toward making better bike lanes and bus routes? Is there an effective electoral voice pushing for these options?

In my opinion, the only solution is to make it prohibitively expensive to drive 10,000 miles per year (the miles I would drive in a year commuting by car, and I'm guessing not too far from the average annual commuting mileage in the U.S.). If we doubled the price of gas through taxation, and it caused people to live an average of only 10 miles from work instead of 20, then the net overall cost would be essentially zero while halving carbon emissions (and reducing wear and tear on roadways). Once driving becomes prohibitively expensive (so that alternative transport or moving closer to work is seen as being less costly than driving), only then will a sizeable amount of people begin demanding legitimate alternatives to driving.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 08, 2019, 12:46:55 PM
I'd be interested to know where the rest of the money would have gone but it certainly sounds like they could have directed more of it towards alternative transportation. I don't know enough to say whether Mr. Picard's position is a reasonable one but even if 100% of revenue went toward alternative transportation, would that have stopped the protests?

From what I've read, it is being used to reduce the budget deficit. This is an indirect return of the money to the people, in the form of reducing future taxes. (Of course, it might all be a shell game, similar to lottery revenues going to the schools but tax revenues to the schools decreasing by similar amounts.)

That seems like a reasonable use of the money but for the sake of public opinion it probably would have been better to allocate a larger portion to alternative transportation or clean energy. And yes, it may just be a shell game anyway. Or perhaps compromise was needed to get the tax through at all? So many details like this get left out of the main stream conversation. For example, I wasn't even aware that the gas tax passed before Macron was elected until I read that article. Haven't I heard it referred to as "Macron's gas tax"?

Looking at the bigger picture I think it's going to be impossible to pass serious environmental reform without impacting the price of common goods and in turn increasing the price of common goods is going to pinch lower income folks the worst. So regardless of whether Mr. Picard specifically is a hypocrite, I think the political left who typically want to protect both the environment and the lower class is going to need to come to terms with the fact that compromise will be necessary. In my ideal world, most of the sacrifice would be born by the wealthy, especially considering they tend to be the worst polluters, but it becomes quite difficult to pick and choose who pays when using the blunt tools of tax and regulation, especially when the wealthy have outsized say in the decisions.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 08, 2019, 12:58:04 PM
Public transit and walking are really not an option at all due to the time that you would lose each day.  Just in Canada, we spend fifteen and a half billion dollars a year on road work - more twice as much as every other type of transportation combined http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf (http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf).  Our public transit sucks because we aren't willing to spend the money to both build the transit that is necessary . . . and to pay to operate it.  This is a failure of the officials we have elected to government.

My only quibble: How is this a failure of the elected officials? Did they promise to divert some of the road infrastructure budget toward making better bike lanes and bus routes? Is there an effective electoral voice pushing for these options?

In my opinion, the only solution is to make it prohibitively expensive to drive 10,000 miles per year (the miles I would drive in a year commuting by car, and I'm guessing not too far from the average annual commuting mileage in the U.S.). If we doubled the price of gas through taxation, and it caused people to live an average of only 10 miles from work instead of 20, then the net overall cost would be essentially zero while halving carbon emissions (and reducing wear and tear on roadways). Once driving becomes prohibitively expensive (so that alternative transport or moving closer to work is seen as being less costly than driving), only then will a sizeable amount of people begin demanding legitimate alternatives to driving.

It's very much a chicken and egg thing.  Without good alternatives, people will continue driving.  But while people continue driving, it's hard to drum up support for good alternatives.  That's where the failure of leadership comes in.  The job and responsibility of elected officials is to lead the people of a country to make good decisions for the future.

The Conservatives in Ontario drafted legislation making it a legal requirement that all gas stations post anti-carbon tax stickers (if they don't there's a daily fine of 150$) on their gas pumps . . . and then spent taxpayer money printing up these stickers.  The taxes collected from the program were designed to go directly to the provinces (for use on things like public transportation), but our provincial government rejected this money.  So the federal government just gave the tax proceeds back to each citizen of Ontario as a rebate.

Best part about the stickers is, the Conservatives sourced the cheapest stickers possible . . . which aren't designed for exterior use.  So they're all peeling off.  Effectively, they spent tax payer money to fight a government program designed to reduce carbon emissions, and did it in an ineffectual and wasteful manner (which also triggered several lawsuits they have had to fight).

Failure of leadership.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 08, 2019, 01:18:02 PM
The Conservatives in Ontario drafted legislation making it a legal requirement that all gas stations post anti-carbon tax stickers (if they don't there's a daily fine of 150$) on their gas pumps . . .

So the government can require businesses to advertise their political propaganda?

Quote
(which also triggered several lawsuits they have had to fight).

As it should, but still... wtf?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 01:21:51 PM
I'd be interested to know where the rest of the money would have gone but it certainly sounds like they could have directed more of it towards alternative transportation. I don't know enough to say whether Mr. Picard's position is a reasonable one but even if 100% of revenue went toward alternative transportation, would that have stopped the protests?

From what I've read, it is being used to reduce the budget deficit. This is an indirect return of the money to the people, in the form of reducing future taxes. (Of course, it might all be a shell game, similar to lottery revenues going to the schools but tax revenues to the schools decreasing by similar amounts.)

That seems like a reasonable use of the money but for the sake of public opinion it probably would have been better to allocate a larger portion to alternative transportation or clean energy. And yes, it may just be a shell game anyway. Or perhaps compromise was needed to get the tax through at all? So many details like this get left out of the main stream conversation. For example, I wasn't even aware that the gas tax passed before Macron was elected until I read that article. Haven't I heard it referred to as "Macron's gas tax"?

Looking at the bigger picture I think it's going to be impossible to pass serious environmental reform without impacting the price of common goods and in turn increasing the price of common goods is going to pinch lower income folks the worst. So regardless of whether Mr. Picard specifically is a hypocrite, I think the political left who typically want to protect both the environment and the lower class is going to need to come to terms with the fact that compromise will be necessary. In my ideal world, most of the sacrifice would be born by the wealthy, especially considering they tend to be the worst polluters, but it becomes quite difficult to pick and choose who pays when using the blunt tools of tax and regulation, especially when the wealthy have outsized say in the decisions.

I agree with the bolded, though I don't think this is all that difficult to do with taxation (politics aside). The difficult part is changing people's perceptions of car culture. To use an example, take my city. Shittiest fucking traffic (at least relative to other places I've lived). Great bus system. Guess who uses that bus system? Mostly the dirt poor, and a few people like myself who don't particularly like driving and would much rather relax and read a book (and save a few bucks). I am convinced that a whole lot of people could use the bus regularly to save a significant portion of their income, but the thought does not even enter into their minds. What would happen if gas became significantly more expensive? I think bus ridership would increase to the point where it would no longer look like a deviant activity, at which time there could be a massive transfer in mode of transportation.

If we could decrease the average driving distance simply by half (through increases in alternative transportation and choices of living location and activities, both brought about by a significant carbon tax), I am convinced that most people would be significantly happier and wealthier (not to mention that driving when one needs to would be considerably less stressful due to the reduction in traffic).

The downside to the carbon tax, of course, is that most carbon is essentially internationally fungible, so we have the classic case of the tragedy of the commons. If I make my carbon on the demand side more expensive, it floods the market and makes everybody else's carbon cheaper; this spills over into the costs of goods, putting domestic goods at a disadvantage on the international market.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 01:43:56 PM
It's very much a chicken and egg thing.  Without good alternatives, people will continue driving.
True. Not sure why I just thought of this little anecdote: A couple years ago, my non-Mustachian brother (still working on him) decided to have his bachelor party in Toronto. Flying out there wasn't the Mustachian thing to do, but gave me a chance to hang out with him, plus see some cousins who live out that way. That being said, when it came time to travel from the airport to our rental, a simple search online showed a fast train traveling directly from the airport to within blocks of where we were staying, all for a fraction of an Uber. I shared this little tidbit, but guess who was the only person who didn't rent their own Uber?

Quote
Failure of leadership.
I don't disagree.... But the leaders are elected by the citizens of Ontario, are they not?

Needless to say, we have many of the same issues in the U.S. My only hope is that the younger generation will internalize the threat of climate change, and a demographic wave will elect leaders who will make meaningful reforms toward carbon reduction.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 08, 2019, 02:08:03 PM
It's very much a chicken and egg thing.  Without good alternatives, people will continue driving.
True. Not sure why I just thought of this little anecdote: A couple years ago, my non-Mustachian brother (still working on him) decided to have his bachelor party in Toronto. Flying out there wasn't the Mustachian thing to do, but gave me a chance to hang out with him, plus see some cousins who live out that way. That being said, when it came time to travel from the airport to our rental, a simple search online showed a fast train traveling directly from the airport to within blocks of where we were staying, all for a fraction of an Uber. I shared this little tidbit, but guess who was the only person who didn't rent their own Uber?

Yeah, the UPX.

It was originally going to be private only, but then started losing money hand over fist.  So the government wanted to get in on that action, snapped it up, and then tried charging stupid high prices per ride . . . as an attempt to make it an exclusive private airport/downtown connection and reduce crowding.  But then that lost even more money, so they cut the fares on it and tried to make it into a commuter train as well as an airport connection.  So now we've got an expensive high-class taxpayer funded tiny slice of public transit, that is expected to lose money every year it's in operation with two stops between the airport and union station.  Ugh.  :P

I'm glad you got some use out of it at least!




Quote
Failure of leadership.

I don't disagree.... But the leaders are elected by the citizens of Ontario, are they not?

Needless to say, we have many of the same issues in the U.S. My only hope is that the younger generation will internalize the threat of climate change, and a demographic wave will elect leaders who will make meaningful reforms toward carbon reduction.

Yes and no.  We use first past the post.  They won 60% of the seats to form a majority government with 40% of the votes.  If we had proportional representation then every vote would matter, and there would be less ability for a single party to push through stupid policy because they'd be held in check by the others.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 08, 2019, 02:19:44 PM

Yes and no.  We use first past the post.  They won 60% of the seats to form a majority government with 40% of the votes.  If we had proportional representation then every vote would matter, and there would be less ability for a single party to push through stupid policy because they'd be held in check by the others.

Which is something I am still mad at Trudeau about for the federal election.  I am guessing though that the provinces get to do their own choice?  Or would the federal change have made the provinces change too?  Hmm, must google. 

ETA - up to Ontario to change that for the province.  Last tried in 2007.  One of the few times I am sorry we don't have a bunch of referenda tied in to elections, like I read about  in the US.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 08, 2019, 03:10:23 PM
Yes and no.  We use first past the post.  They won 60% of the seats to form a majority government with 40% of the votes.  If we had proportional representation then every vote would matter, and there would be less ability for a single party to push through stupid policy because they'd be held in check by the others.

Had to look up first-past-the-post, hadn't heard the term before (but certainly familiar with the concept). Wikipedia shows as an example the Liberal Party of Canada winning 54% of the seats from 40% of the vote during the 2015 national election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Unrepresentative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Unrepresentative)). So it cuts both ways, does it not?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 08, 2019, 03:46:01 PM
Yes and no.  We use first past the post.  They won 60% of the seats to form a majority government with 40% of the votes.  If we had proportional representation then every vote would matter, and there would be less ability for a single party to push through stupid policy because they'd be held in check by the others.

Had to look up first-past-the-post, hadn't heard the term before (but certainly familiar with the concept). Wikipedia shows as an example the Liberal Party of Canada winning 54% of the seats from 40% of the vote during the 2015 national election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Unrepresentative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Unrepresentative)). So it cuts both ways, does it not?

Yes it does.  And hurts both ways, because the smaller parties get cut out, even though they have support.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 08, 2019, 04:05:23 PM
Climate change aside, cars are basically stupid*.

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars paving interstates to turn into parking lots twice a day, five days a week while trillions of dollars of human labor sits idle, sucking in fumes, only to then park 300 billion dollars worth of depreciating assets for 40 hours a week in the sun, hail, and rain.

It's cray cray!  I'm generally a small government libertarian type, but I'm all for major municipalities raising taxes or bonds and building competitive mass transit options, and paying for operating costs out of taxes, not fares.

*sweeping generalization alert!!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 08, 2019, 05:56:23 PM
Well, Montecarlo, this is why electric or whatever cars won't solve our issues. In the end, you are using 1,000kg of metal and plastic to move 70kg of person, and you require a very expensive pathway for it - in some cases up to $1 billion a km - that's right, a million bucks a metre. [https://www.smh.com.au/business/if-you-thought-using-a-toll-road-was-costly-try-building-one-20140810-102i5o.html].

You can't really make this efficient in energy, pollution or finance, whatever you do.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 08, 2019, 07:26:25 PM
Yes and no.  We use first past the post.  They won 60% of the seats to form a majority government with 40% of the votes.  If we had proportional representation then every vote would matter, and there would be less ability for a single party to push through stupid policy because they'd be held in check by the others.

Had to look up first-past-the-post, hadn't heard the term before (but certainly familiar with the concept). Wikipedia shows as an example the Liberal Party of Canada winning 54% of the seats from 40% of the vote during the 2015 national election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Unrepresentative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Unrepresentative)). So it cuts both ways, does it not?

Yes it does.  And hurts both ways, because the smaller parties get cut out, even though they have support.

Yep.  I'm very pissed that Trudeau broke his promise to implement rep by pop.  I get why he did it (it's expected to help the Liberal party in the next election) but it's bullshit and hurts our country.  I'd be very happy to see more green party representation in government, which will never happen the way the system is currently setup.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on October 09, 2019, 10:31:56 AM

Vincent Picard describes himself as a “militant ecologist.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)  But when protesters took to the streets to express their rage over a planned increase in France’s fuel tax, Mr. Picard joined their ranks.
He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day....


Ha ha! Hypocriticism for the win!!

You can call it hypocrisy I suppose.  To me, it kinda highlights the problem with attempting to solve a huge issue like climate change on a personal level.

Most governments have built transportation infrastructure with all of our money . . . but the majority of that infrastructure is automobile based.  It mentions in the article that he wants to take the train, but it doesn't go where he needs it to and it's not accessible without an automobile.  Give people cheap, fast, efficient ways to get around that aren't cars and they'll use 'em.  Make it so that it's incredibly difficult, dangerous, or painful to use other modes of transportation . . . and the majority of people will always choose the option that the government has made easiest for them.

You can't just tax gas and then not give people an alternative to drive.  The gas tax needs to be built into transit plans that will work together to reduce fuel consumption.  We need to stop throwing the huge amount of money that we do every year into building and repairing roads, and throw that giant surplus into transit programs.  We need leadership from our governments on climate issues to dig out of the hole that this poor planning has dug for us.

Sell that man an ebike. Might not be the right transportation device 365 days a year (for the average person) but it would help get him out of the car. Of course I have no idea if his route is conducive to bicycling.

I took a couple of coworkers for a ride in my employer's EV. The EV conversation was not about the cost - these folks were complaining about having to plug it in a few nights per week. Both drive about ten miles to work. In a new Nissan Leaf with the big battery. They might need to charge but once a week. However apparently visiting the gas station is not an inconvenience. Same people think I'm nuts riding an ebike around town so not surprising.

Lots of inertia in people's minds and habits right now. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Aelias on October 09, 2019, 11:25:48 AM

I took a couple of coworkers for a ride in my employer's EV. The EV conversation was not about the cost - these folks were complaining about having to plug it in a few nights per week. Both drive about ten miles to work. In a new Nissan Leaf with the big battery. They might need to charge but once a week. However apparently visiting the gas station is not an inconvenience. Same people think I'm nuts riding an ebike around town so not surprising.

Lots of inertia in people's minds and habits right now.

OH, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

Plugging in your EV at home and NOT having to go to the gas station (or get your oil changed, for that matter) is one of the BEST things about owning an EV! Who is really dying to go to the gas station? Best case scenario, it's 10 minutes out of your life, $$ out of your pocket, and it smells like gas.  That's the best possible experience you can have at a gas station.  Remembering to plug in my car when I get home is so stupid easy I let my 4 year old do it!  He thinks it fun that the car beeps "thank you!" when it gets a "drink"!

If you don't have a lot of variation in your daily routine and you're not a capable cyclist ::raises hand::, a 10 mile commute is IDEAL for a Leaf. 

All I am saying is give Leafs a chance!

(I'll show myself out after that last one :) )


Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 09, 2019, 11:43:17 AM
All I am saying is give Leafs a chance!

Everybody's talkin bout
Yellow vests, bellow lefts, mellow west, hello next,
E-bikes and E-trikes and E-hikes and E-likes,
All we are saying is give Leafs a chance!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 09, 2019, 11:47:38 AM
Some humor in this thread! Ah, what a re-Leaf..
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Bloop Bloop on October 09, 2019, 04:30:42 PM
There are lots of great things about owning an internal combustion engine car, like the feeling of hitting redline, the increased mechanical connection between you and the car, the sound and the fury of the engine, etc. Whether that makes up for the pollution, the expense and the hassle (when not driving it) of owning a car is a question for each person. My car sits in the garage 99% of the time and I only take it out occasionally for a hoon. As I get older I will probably sell it as Uber is much cheaper than the costs of owning and maintaining a depreciating asset.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 09, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging?  Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on October 09, 2019, 06:33:56 PM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging? Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

Individual transport is a huge issue, but the other "hobbies" you mentioned could easily be powered by ICE engines that run on ethanol or biodiesel.  The amount of fuel used is really small compared to everyday transport and these people tend to already pay more for their fuel compared to the average person, as drag cars run better on special blends (or nitromethane...)

Jets, private or public, are also a huge and growing issue.  There is some sort of international agreement that fuel for jets should not be taxed.  That will obviously have to go if we are going to reduce emissions in the longer term.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: palebluedot on October 09, 2019, 08:27:49 PM
I've been fortunate to join a few Sunrise Movement events since they formed including one at Pelosi's office in DC last December. These young kids are doing hard work right now. Here's a brief history of the group.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/9/10/20847401/sunrise-movement-climate-change-activist-millennials-global-warming
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 09, 2019, 09:13:48 PM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging? Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

Individual transport is a huge issue, but the other "hobbies" you mentioned could easily be powered by ICE engines that run on ethanol or biodiesel.  The amount of fuel used is really small compared to everyday transport and these people tend to already pay more for their fuel compared to the average person, as drag cars run better on special blends (or nitromethane...)

Jets, private or public, are also a huge and growing issue.  There is some sort of international agreement that fuel for jets should not be taxed.  That will obviously have to go if we are going to reduce emissions in the longer term.

Fair enough, I was just thinking about how at some point, our desire for economy-of-scale and its benefits regarding our environment will conflict with our individualistic interests.  I'm sure there are better examples, but jet travel is a good one.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 10, 2019, 03:22:29 AM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging? Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

Individual transport is a huge issue, but the other "hobbies" you mentioned could easily be powered by ICE engines that run on ethanol or biodiesel.  The amount of fuel used is really small compared to everyday transport and these people tend to already pay more for their fuel compared to the average person, as drag cars run better on special blends (or nitromethane...)

Jets, private or public, are also a huge and growing issue.  There is some sort of international agreement that fuel for jets should not be taxed.  That will obviously have to go if we are going to reduce emissions in the longer term.

Fair enough, I was just thinking about how at some point, our desire for economy-of-scale and its benefits regarding our environment will conflict with our individualistic interests.  I'm sure there are better examples, but jet travel is a good one.
I made a poll at the start of the year on jet travel.  Two thirds of the mustachians who answered said that they would fly as often and as far as they liked and damn the climate, and most of the rest said they would fly for specific purposes as and when it suited them.

And that's mustachians, who are supposed to be about rational thought and not trashing the environment.   We are truly fucked, and most people talking about the need to do something about climate change and worrying about their children's future, even those on this forum, are selfish, hypocritical asswipes.

(To counter the inevitable whining, I've flown for just over one hour (a family emergency, trains and roads blocked by flooding) in the last 18 years.  I drive less than 4,000 miles a year in a small economy car (I live very rurally) and all other fuel use is renewables.  I buy almost nothing new other than food and eat seasonal local vegetarian produce.  My unpaid FIRE day job is to campaign locally for sustainable development and environmental protection, with some success.  I'm as far from hypocritical as I can get, I know it can be done and everything else is excuses.)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 10, 2019, 05:14:43 AM
Well, mustachians tend to be well-off, or working on it, and it's well-established that increasing wealth means decreasing empathy. So that's no surprise.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 10, 2019, 05:20:31 AM
Well, mustachians tend to be well-off, or working on it, and it's well-established that increasing wealth means decreasing empathy. So that's no surprise.
You are right, of course, but it doesn't make the blatant hypocrisy any less enraging.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 10, 2019, 06:57:27 AM
Well, mustachians tend to be well-off, or working on it, and it's well-established that increasing wealth means decreasing empathy. So that's no surprise.
You are right, of course, but it doesn't make the blatant hypocrisy any less enraging.
I'm not sure that saving the environment is central to Mustachianism.  There's also the pragmatic element that says that people will still want to/need to travel for business or for pleasure.  In the same way that people want to own houses and have children, despite the carbon footprint there.  So hopefully we can come up with answers to those questions that don't include "don't travel, or buy stuff, or have kids".

Early retirement itself could be questioned as bad for the environment, unless you're spending your retirement planting trees.  Even then, it's likely your job will have a smaller carbon footprint in the future so perhaps it could be argued that we should all keep working as long as possible.  Or maybe working has less carbon output than generating an investment return.  This stuff gets really complicated really quickly.  So I'm skeptical of our ability to control it.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 10, 2019, 07:19:28 AM
Well, mustachians tend to be well-off, or working on it, and it's well-established that increasing wealth means decreasing empathy. So that's no surprise.
You are right, of course, but it doesn't make the blatant hypocrisy any less enraging.
I'm not sure that saving the environment is central to Mustachianism.
What is central to Mustachianism is maximising "lifetime wealth", where "wealth" is not defined solely as "money".   People who knowingly, deliberately and wantonly spend down the resources of the planet on jet travel are destroying their "wealth" and that of their children.  They are buying something they and their children can't afford.

  There's also the pragmatic element that says that people will still want to/need to travel for business or for pleasure.  In the same way that people want to own houses and have children, despite the carbon footprint there.  So hopefully we can come up with answers to those questions that don't include "don't travel, or buy stuff, or have kids".
Mustachianism is all about retraining your "wants" and "needs".  And when valid wants and needs have been established, to meet those wants and needs in ways which align with the central tenets of the creed.  There are almost always ways of dealing with things by excluding jet travel.  Yes, even for families split across continents, or people doing business with other people far away.

Early retirement itself could be questioned as bad for the environment, unless you're spending your retirement planting trees.  Even then, it's likely your job will have a smaller carbon footprint in the future so perhaps it could be argued that we should all keep working as long as possible.  Or maybe working has less carbon output than generating an investment return.  This stuff gets really complicated really quickly.  So I'm skeptical of our ability to control it.
Early retirement is I think neutral at worst as regards a carbon footprint.  What living off investments in retirement really means is that X number of people are working in return for X+Y number of people having an income, with the difference being the capital benefits of investment in plant and process.  The more people who invest capital into plant and process then the bigger the ratio of Y to X.  Is that bad for the environment, overall? A nice job for an economist to think about.

There is definitely an issue with index investing including a large number of businesses that are unquestionably bad for the environment.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: PoutineLover on October 10, 2019, 08:39:59 AM
I think it is possible to care about the environment and also occasionally fly. My family is spread out on both coasts of Canada, and some are in Europe. If it's a choice of never seeing them or taking 5 days to drive or train to the ones on the west coast or flying in 5 hours, I'm going to fly. I don't have the luxury of enough time not to fly and not seeing them is not an option, although it's not like I go every year.
If anything, frequent flyers and those who take flights for sub 6 hour drives are the ones that cause the vast majority of emissions. If we established a North American high speed electric rail system, I bet we could eliminate 50% of flights while adding less than 50% more time to most short trips. That's the low hanging fruit that should be tackled first. Also, stop giving so many rewards to people who travel weekly or more, it just incentivises that behavior. Make each subsequent flight more expensive, and watch how quickly people learn to skype.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2019, 08:49:33 AM
Well, mustachians tend to be well-off, or working on it, and it's well-established that increasing wealth means decreasing empathy. So that's no surprise.
You are right, of course, but it doesn't make the blatant hypocrisy any less enraging.
I'm not sure that saving the environment is central to Mustachianism.  There's also the pragmatic element that says that people will still want to/need to travel for business or for pleasure.  In the same way that people want to own houses and have children, despite the carbon footprint there.  So hopefully we can come up with answers to those questions that don't include "don't travel, or buy stuff, or have kids".

Early retirement itself could be questioned as bad for the environment, unless you're spending your retirement planting trees.  Even then, it's likely your job will have a smaller carbon footprint in the future so perhaps it could be argued that we should all keep working as long as possible.  Or maybe working has less carbon output than generating an investment return.  This stuff gets really complicated really quickly.  So I'm skeptical of our ability to control it.

I disagree with you on that. MMM talked specifically about the caring about the environment and its connection to mustachianism in like his fifth or sixth blog post, and has mentioned it a fair amount over the years. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/11/getting-started-2-the-higher-cause/
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 10, 2019, 08:53:25 AM
Well, mustachians tend to be well-off, or working on it, and it's well-established that increasing wealth means decreasing empathy. So that's no surprise.
You are right, of course, but it doesn't make the blatant hypocrisy any less enraging.
I'm not sure that saving the environment is central to Mustachianism.  There's also the pragmatic element that says that people will still want to/need to travel for business or for pleasure.  In the same way that people want to own houses and have children, despite the carbon footprint there.  So hopefully we can come up with answers to those questions that don't include "don't travel, or buy stuff, or have kids".

Early retirement itself could be questioned as bad for the environment, unless you're spending your retirement planting trees.  Even then, it's likely your job will have a smaller carbon footprint in the future so perhaps it could be argued that we should all keep working as long as possible.  Or maybe working has less carbon output than generating an investment return.  This stuff gets really complicated really quickly.  So I'm skeptical of our ability to control it.

I disagree with you on that. MMM talked specifically about the caring about the environment and its connection to mustachianism in like his fifth or sixth blog post, and has mentioned it a fair amount over the years. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/11/getting-started-2-the-higher-cause/
Fair enough, I was wrong. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on October 10, 2019, 09:28:28 AM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging?  Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

As long as the fleet average gets cleaner and more efficient then who cares how dirty a 1953 Chevy is? The old car will likely not be driven much anyhow unless it is in Cuba...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 10, 2019, 09:42:38 AM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging?  Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

As long as the fleet average gets cleaner and more efficient then who cares how dirty a 1953 Chevy is? The old car will likely not be driven much anyhow unless it is in Cuba...

Isn't this an argument against individual responsibility in the context of environmentalism?  Many people in Canada don't see the relevance of trying to reduce Canadian emissions when they're only 1.6% of global emissions, but this argument is generally rejected.

Huge swaths of industrializing societies in India and China are working hard to improve their lives and therefore ramping up their carbon output.  That's where most of the carbon increase is coming from but no one expects that average to get cleaner, as you put it.  At least, it's not a sizeable part of the conversation.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2019, 10:06:18 AM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging?  Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

As long as the fleet average gets cleaner and more efficient then who cares how dirty a 1953 Chevy is? The old car will likely not be driven much anyhow unless it is in Cuba...

Isn't this an argument against individual responsibility in the context of environmentalism?  Many people in Canada don't see the relevance of trying to reduce Canadian emissions when they're only 1.6% of global emissions, but this argument is generally rejected.

Huge swaths of industrializing societies in India and China are working hard to improve their lives and therefore ramping up their carbon output.  That's where most of the carbon increase is coming from but no one expects that average to get cleaner, as you put it.  At least, it's not a sizeable part of the conversation.

Can you provide evidence that the ramping up of carbon is coming from 'working hard to improve their lives' rather than 'working hard to produce cheaper shit for North Americans'?  Just because we shipped all of our dirty jobs to other countries doesn't mean we've reduced our demand for the things that cause pollution.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 10, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
I can't wait to see what electric cars do for large Asian cities.  I think they will be transformed.  Manila, Jakarta, Dhaka, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, cities in China, India, etc.  The reduction of noise and air pollution will be incredible.  (There will still be horn-honking, though).

Might not save the environment though.  One of the real challenges of our new environmental paradigm will be the conflict between individual sovereignty and environmental compromises, like will ICE cars be banned?  How about individual transport generally?  Dragstrips?  Burnouts?  Private jets?  Off-roading and mud-bogging?  Climbing Everest?

That's where the innovation needs to be made, I think.  Hopefully we can keep our somewhat individualistic lives efficient enough.

As long as the fleet average gets cleaner and more efficient then who cares how dirty a 1953 Chevy is? The old car will likely not be driven much anyhow unless it is in Cuba...

Isn't this an argument against individual responsibility in the context of environmentalism?  Many people in Canada don't see the relevance of trying to reduce Canadian emissions when they're only 1.6% of global emissions, but this argument is generally rejected.

Huge swaths of industrializing societies in India and China are working hard to improve their lives and therefore ramping up their carbon output.  That's where most of the carbon increase is coming from but no one expects that average to get cleaner, as you put it.  At least, it's not a sizeable part of the conversation.

Can you provide evidence that the ramping up of carbon is coming from 'working hard to improve their lives' rather than 'working hard to produce cheaper shit for North Americans'?  Just because we shipped all of our dirty jobs to other countries doesn't mean we've reduced our demand for the things that cause pollution.
I won't argue against that, it's probably where a lot of demand is coming from.  But it's hard to suggest that the developing world should slow their development.  Most people everywhere in the world that work are simply trying to improve their proximal lives.  They're trying to get a decent paycheck for their family, probably not concerning themselves much with the greater implications, environmental or otherwise.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 10, 2019, 05:08:41 PM
It seems pretty tough to tell developing countries that they cannot work to achieve our standard of living...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 10, 2019, 06:10:27 PM
It seems pretty tough to tell developing countries that they cannot work to achieve our standard of living...
I dunno, I feel like we could improve our standard of living. For example, among the new threads today is "Hour each way commute, or 5 minutes each way commute with $12,000 pay cut?" Spending about 500 hours a year commuting... this is an actual question, apparently.

By walking and cycling more, having work and home closer, we'd have improved physical and mental health, more time with family and friends and on hobbies, and so on. By not buying every new piece of junk that comes along we'd feel less anxious at keeping up with the Joneses, and suffer less of the paradox of choice. By eating less meat and processed food, we'd improve our health. And so on.

If you look at a listing of the world's happiest countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2018_report), GDP per capita is in there which correlates moderately with emissions, but the other factors don't. The top countries include a few high emitters like Canada, but also some low emitters like Costa Rica - which ranks higher than the US. And some very high emitters, very "well-developed" countries like UAE are lower.

So there isn't a simple equation of more emissions = happier people.

Maybe we in the West should improve our lifestyles.

In any case, resource constraints will mean that we're simply not going to see a world of cars and freeways and everyone zipping about on 747s. There's just not enough fossil fuels. Even if burning coal gave us vitamin C, the stuff is limited. We used it up first, the Third World misses out. Sorry. They were late to the party and the binge drinkers finished off all the booze.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 10, 2019, 06:18:08 PM
It seems pretty tough to tell developing countries that they cannot work to achieve our standard of living...
I dunno, I feel like we could improve our standard of living. For example, among the new threads today is "Hour each way commute, or 5 minutes each way commute with $12,000 pay cut?" Spending about 500 hours a year commuting... this is an actual question, apparently.

By walking and cycling more, having work and home closer, we'd have improved physical and mental health, more time with family and friends and on hobbies, and so on. By not buying every new piece of junk that comes along we'd feel less anxious at keeping up with the Joneses, and suffer less of the paradox of choice. By eating less meat and processed food, we'd improve our health. And so on.

If you look at a listing of the world's happiest countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2018_report), GDP per capita is in there which correlates moderately with emissions, but the other factors don't. The top countries include a few high emitters like Canada, but also some low emitters like Costa Rica - which ranks higher than the US. And some very high emitters, very "well-developed" countries like UAE are lower.

So there isn't a simple equation of more emissions = happier people.

Maybe we in the West should improve our lifestyles.

In any case, resource constraints will mean that we're simply not going to see a world of cars and freeways and everyone zipping about on 747s. There's just not enough fossil fuels. Even if burning coal gave us vitamin C, the stuff is limited. We used it up first, the Third World misses out. Sorry. They were late to the party and the binge drinkers finished off all the booze.
Kyle brings up some great points.
To say that developing countries somehow **need** to emit more carbon-per-capita in order to raise their standard of living is simply false.  One of the systemic challenges we face in the US is that we’ve got too much infrastructure built around cars and car ownership, and too much stigma associated with things like public transport and sharing spaces.  We’ve also wholeheartedly bought into the notion that spending generates happiness, despite all the studies which prove otherwise.

Some developing nations don’t have these obstacles. Designing from the ground up is often easier that accommodating inefficient, legacy systems.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 10, 2019, 06:55:10 PM
What do those people in these "developing" countries think?

How are they "developing?"  Seems like a lot of these countries have been around as long as the US.  Why haven't they "developed?"  Seems like a lot of them like in South America have a few rich folks and a lot of people just scrambling to stay alive.  People build factories there and pay them peanuts.

Maybe they won't be using too many resources real soon because there are forces to keep them down.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on October 10, 2019, 09:03:29 PM
What do those people in these "developing" countries think?

How are they "developing?"  Seems like a lot of these countries have been around as long as the US.  Why haven't they "developed?"  Seems like a lot of them like in South America have a few rich folks and a lot of people just scrambling to stay alive.  People build factories there and pay them peanuts.

Maybe they won't be using too many resources real soon because there are forces to keep them down.

^Not sure if sarcasm or not...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on October 10, 2019, 09:08:13 PM
A friend of mine completed her Masters in Sustainable Development writing about how countries like Malawi (her home) are places that lack resources to develop (specifically intermittent electricity, blackouts, etc) and the most viable option given their needs is nuclear. I can't explain her points well (I don't remember them well) but she was trying to answer that complex question raised above: if some aspects of development (access to electricity and electricity providing things like cleaner water, etc) are important than Africa will need more power - how do they get it without creating more of the problems we have.

As an aside, I notice a lot of people online writing that we need fewer people, but that's not true. In the USA, for example, if the richest 10% had the same consumption as the next richest 10% emissions would drop by 15-20%. Consistently it's not necessarily the bulk of humanity, but a lot of richer people who (admittedly through business choices) end up emitting wayyyyyyyyyyy more than poorer people.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 10, 2019, 09:10:29 PM
It seems pretty tough to tell developing countries that they cannot work to achieve our standard of living...
I dunno, I feel like we could improve our standard of living. For example, among the new threads today is "Hour each way commute, or 5 minutes each way commute with $12,000 pay cut?" Spending about 500 hours a year commuting... this is an actual question, apparently.

By walking and cycling more, having work and home closer, we'd have improved physical and mental health, more time with family and friends and on hobbies, and so on. By not buying every new piece of junk that comes along we'd feel less anxious at keeping up with the Joneses, and suffer less of the paradox of choice. By eating less meat and processed food, we'd improve our health. And so on.

If you look at a listing of the world's happiest countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2018_report), GDP per capita is in there which correlates moderately with emissions, but the other factors don't. The top countries include a few high emitters like Canada, but also some low emitters like Costa Rica - which ranks higher than the US. And some very high emitters, very "well-developed" countries like UAE are lower.

So there isn't a simple equation of more emissions = happier people.

Maybe we in the West should improve our lifestyles.

In any case, resource constraints will mean that we're simply not going to see a world of cars and freeways and everyone zipping about on 747s. There's just not enough fossil fuels. Even if burning coal gave us vitamin C, the stuff is limited. We used it up first, the Third World misses out. Sorry. They were late to the party and the binge drinkers finished off all the booze.

Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities?  Seems like NIMBYism is really holding us back here.

I do think many Asian cities are eventually going to steamroll places like LA in terms of innovation simply due to better transit.  It also allows for greater functional economies despite wealth inequality, since--for instance--laborers in central Bangkok can easily take a train in from the "suburbs" and add value in the HCOL area, something that is becoming a real problem in Silicon Valley, Vancouver, etc.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on October 11, 2019, 01:13:23 AM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities? 

That'd definitely help significantly.

The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.

Once you hit that point it becomes self reinforcing, as more people taking public transit lets you provide ever more frequent service on ever more routes, making public transit more convenient, which makes even more people take it, and so on.

How to 1) get people to want to live at high density given alternative options and 2) get through the crazy zoning/planning hurdles in the USA that prevent this stuff getting build most places, and make it way more expensive when it actually does happen is left as an exercise to the reader.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: 2sk22 on October 11, 2019, 05:25:51 AM
The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.


Thats my dream too - reasonably dense population with fully electrified public transportation - trains, streetcars, busses etc.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 11, 2019, 11:04:44 AM
It seems pretty tough to tell developing countries that they cannot work to achieve our standard of living...
...

In any case, resource constraints will mean that we're simply not going to see a world of cars and freeways and everyone zipping about on 747s. There's just not enough fossil fuels. Even if burning coal gave us vitamin C, the stuff is limited. We used it up first, the Third World misses out. Sorry. They were late to the party and the binge drinkers finished off all the booze.

Not willing to take that approach. Pretty sure it's inaccurate, definitely unwilling to sit in my cozy home and ask poor people halfway across the world to stay poor.

I can hear the wailing already. Sorry, but there's plenty of renewable energy and human ingenuity. The poor are going to keep rising. We humans will find a way. The sooner we focus on how to do it, instead of just accepting that others are poor, the sooner our wealthy societies will start reducing our own inherent risks.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 11, 2019, 11:28:24 AM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities? 

That'd definitely help significantly.

The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.

Once you hit that point it becomes self reinforcing, as more people taking public transit lets you provide ever more frequent service on ever more routes, making public transit more convenient, which makes even more people take it, and so on.

How to 1) get people to want to live at high density given alternative options and 2) get through the crazy zoning/planning hurdles in the USA that prevent this stuff getting build most places, and make it way more expensive when it actually does happen is left as an exercise to the reader.

As a long time tenant, improving airflow and vastly improving  sound deadening would make condos and apartments FAR more liveable.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 11, 2019, 04:35:33 PM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities? 

That'd definitely help significantly.

The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.

Once you hit that point it becomes self reinforcing, as more people taking public transit lets you provide ever more frequent service on ever more routes, making public transit more convenient, which makes even more people take it, and so on.

How to 1) get people to want to live at high density given alternative options and 2) get through the crazy zoning/planning hurdles in the USA that prevent this stuff getting build most places, and make it way more expensive when it actually does happen is left as an exercise to the reader.

As a long time tenant, improving airflow and vastly improving  sound deadening would make condos and apartments FAR more liveable.

I am not sure of the wisdom of having apartment towers on major streets.  Sounds barriers work for houses and town houses, but not towers.  I was temporarily in an apartment on a main street, and my balcony was basically unusable.  The building soundproofing was good, I barely heard the street noise with the doors and windows shut.  Of course, in nice weather we want our windows open!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 11, 2019, 04:55:57 PM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities? 

That'd definitely help significantly.

The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.

Once you hit that point it becomes self reinforcing, as more people taking public transit lets you provide ever more frequent service on ever more routes, making public transit more convenient, which makes even more people take it, and so on.

How to 1) get people to want to live at high density given alternative options and 2) get through the crazy zoning/planning hurdles in the USA that prevent this stuff getting build most places, and make it way more expensive when it actually does happen is left as an exercise to the reader.

As a long time tenant, improving airflow and vastly improving  sound deadening would make condos and apartments FAR more liveable.

I am not sure of the wisdom of having apartment towers on major streets.  Sounds barriers work for houses and town houses, but not towers.  I was temporarily in an apartment on a main street, and my balcony was basically unusable.  The building soundproofing was good, I barely heard the street noise with the doors and windows shut.  Of course, in nice weather we want our windows open!

That's true, but major streets shouldn't be anywhere near high rises ideally.  And with less ICE cars, it wouldn't be as bad.  Plus, if high rises had nice courtyards they could be more hospitable.  What I mean to say is, if value is added in the right place, high rises could be much more liveable.  Fancy counters and lights and things are not the right place for developers to be investing.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 11, 2019, 05:07:53 PM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities? 

That'd definitely help significantly.

The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.

Once you hit that point it becomes self reinforcing, as more people taking public transit lets you provide ever more frequent service on ever more routes, making public transit more convenient, which makes even more people take it, and so on.

How to 1) get people to want to live at high density given alternative options and 2) get through the crazy zoning/planning hurdles in the USA that prevent this stuff getting build most places, and make it way more expensive when it actually does happen is left as an exercise to the reader.

As a long time tenant, improving airflow and vastly improving  sound deadening would make condos and apartments FAR more liveable.

I am not sure of the wisdom of having apartment towers on major streets.  Sounds barriers work for houses and town houses, but not towers.  I was temporarily in an apartment on a main street, and my balcony was basically unusable.  The building soundproofing was good, I barely heard the street noise with the doors and windows shut.  Of course, in nice weather we want our windows open!

That's true, but major streets shouldn't be anywhere near high rises ideally.  And with less ICE cars, it wouldn't be as bad.  Plus, if high rises had nice courtyards they could be more hospitable.  What I mean to say is, if value is added in the right place, high rises could be much more liveable.  Fancy counters and lights and things are not the right place for developers to be investing.

When I was looking for an apartment in Ottawa, a lot of high rises were near major arteries - the streets were there first.  Some have courtyards or other ways to be not right on top of traffic, but lots are right beside the streets.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 11, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities? 

That'd definitely help significantly.

The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.

Once you hit that point it becomes self reinforcing, as more people taking public transit lets you provide ever more frequent service on ever more routes, making public transit more convenient, which makes even more people take it, and so on.

How to 1) get people to want to live at high density given alternative options and 2) get through the crazy zoning/planning hurdles in the USA that prevent this stuff getting build most places, and make it way more expensive when it actually does happen is left as an exercise to the reader.

As a long time tenant, improving airflow and vastly improving  sound deadening would make condos and apartments FAR more liveable.

I am not sure of the wisdom of having apartment towers on major streets.  Sounds barriers work for houses and town houses, but not towers.  I was temporarily in an apartment on a main street, and my balcony was basically unusable.  The building soundproofing was good, I barely heard the street noise with the doors and windows shut.  Of course, in nice weather we want our windows open!

That's true, but major streets shouldn't be anywhere near high rises ideally.  And with less ICE cars, it wouldn't be as bad.  Plus, if high rises had nice courtyards they could be more hospitable.  What I mean to say is, if value is added in the right place, high rises could be much more liveable.  Fancy counters and lights and things are not the right place for developers to be investing.

When I was looking for an apartment in Ottawa, a lot of high rises were near major arteries - the streets were there first.  Some have courtyards or other ways to be not right on top of traffic, but lots are right beside the streets.

It's a bit of a chicken-egg situation.  This is the current situation but if density gets high enough in the immediate downtown and the surrounding area, people will naturally switch to mass transit, which will reduce the need and usage of those large roads.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 11, 2019, 05:50:36 PM
Is it fair to say, then, that what we really need in the West is greater population density in cities?  Seems like NIMBYism is really holding us back here.

That's one approach. But another approach is lower population density, like in places like Nepal with many small villages. Or ordinary old Western suburban life - as it was in the 1950s.

One issue in Western cities is quite simply zoning, with no mixed-use areas. Many city planners seem to think they're playing a game of SimCity where you hold the mouse down and zone many square miles as purely residential, purely commercial, and so on. This makes it certain that people will have to travel a long way between work and home. But it wasn't always so.

Many older suburbs in the Western world will have older strip shops. Australia had the corner "milk bar", which was actually a small grocery store. There was typically also a butcher, a hardware store, a newsagent, a barber's. And there was a strip of shops like this on every fourth block or so, so that there were shops for day-to-day needs at most 1km walk away. Each suburb had a town centre with shops for less frequent needs like clothing, and the civic services like the town council and police, and this town centre was generally at most 5-10km from any housing. There'd be a block of factories somewhere in that suburb, and a school or two.

European cities did it a little differently, with urban centres with shops on the ground floor and housing on the floors above them.

Nowadays instead we'll have this massive development of housing in one area with no shops or factories, all the factories are off somewhere in a big block together next to a massive freeway, and all the shops are in a huge shopping mall.

Cars are both a cause and effect of all this. They're a cause in that if you are on foot, you simply must go to the shops or work close-by, whereas if you have a car, you can drive up to 50km to the shops or work, sometimes even further if there are freeways, etc. Because you go to the massive shopping mall or big box store, you don't go to that place two blocks away, so it closes, and now you have to go to that place far away, and of course you have to own a car; so now cars become an effect. Ten years later when the council is opening up new land for development, they look around at all the strip shops with boarded-up windows, so then they designate this massive area just for housing, and another massive area for commerce - and of course, they bring in regulations about how much car parking there must be.

But it need not be so. Higher density cities are one approach, but another is simply mixed-use areas, whether mixed horizontally like US/Oz suburbs used to be, or mixed vertically like many European cities still are.

Of course, another issue not much discussed is that the sites of cities usually were chosen because there was fertile land there, and as the cities expand horizontally, more fertile land is concreted over to build housing, car parks and so on. This means less food production in a world where food production will be under threat due to climate change and resource depletion, and it also means less places sequestering carbon, as a well-designed agricultural system will do. To a degree using up fertile land is inevitable as populations grow, but the One Big Residential Suburb and One Big Shopping Mall approach make this worse, as they're a very inefficient use of space.

Quote from: BicycleB
We humans will find a way.

This is a statement of faith, not fact. It's a statement of faith from the trinity of Science!, Progress! and Growth! If resources are limited, then at some point economic growth stops, and then the only way for the poor to get a larger slice of the pie is to take some from the wealthy. To prevent civil conflict it is necessary to convince the poor that endless growth is possible, and likewise to preserve the psychological health of the wealthy - which is us on this forum, for the most part. The greatest fear of every well-off person is that someone poor will come and take their wealth, whether directly in the form of armed robbery or indirectly in the form of excessive taxes.


Science may not have more breakthroughs, and in any case science can't do anything about conservation of mass and energy; fossil fuels once burned are gone forever. Sorry. Progress may not continue, or it won't be what we traditionally consider progress (more shiny stuff leading to our doing less physical work). Growth won't continue forever.

It is important to separate church and state, and this includes religions with no official recognition, like the trinity of Science!, Progress! and Growth!

In the face of resource constraints and climate change, it is certain that our lives will change. Our days of happy motoring and the 3,000-mile caesar salad are passing. It is not certain that our lives will change for the worse or better, that is up to us as a society.

I would suggest that since it's certain we must use less, there are many ways to do that. A town of mixed-use neighbourhoods uses less, and a slum made of packing crates uses less, too. I think it's better for us to plan things so we use less but still have decent lives.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:49 PM
Kyle has a point.  In my experience this is also true of small towns that got surrounded by suburbs - there are areas that are mixed, where you can go to the grocery story and hardware store on foot or by bike.  They also had small lot size, or at least narrow lots, so the housing density was enough that there were enough customers who could get to those sores easily.  Modern suburbs are so sprawled out that even if there were shops, most people would still be far away.

@Kyle Schuant, you would have enjoyed our discussion of a car unfriendly public transportation/bike friendly development at CM*TO.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 11, 2019, 06:07:35 PM

When I was looking for an apartment in Ottawa, a lot of high rises were near major arteries - the streets were there first.  Some have courtyards or other ways to be not right on top of traffic, but lots are right beside the streets.

It's a bit of a chicken-egg situation.  This is the current situation but if density gets high enough in the immediate downtown and the surrounding area, people will naturally switch to mass transit, which will reduce the need and usage of those large roads.


What I am seeing is that often those main arteries are where spaces open up for buildings, or buildings are already there.  I get the impression that residential neighbourhoods don't want the high density, because of increased traffic and need of other resources.   And those main arteries will be popular for mass transit, won't they?

@Le Poisson this isn't your area any more, but do you have experience with where municipalities try to infill with towers or medium rise buildings?  My complex has a tall tower along an arterial road, and the rest is a medium rise (5-6 levels) that gets a lot less noise because the tower blocks it.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 11, 2019, 10:05:36 PM

Of course, another issue not much discussed is that the sites of cities usually were chosen because there was fertile land there, and as the cities expand horizontally, more fertile land is concreted over to build housing, car parks and so on. This means less food production in a world where food production will be under threat due to climate change and resource depletion, and it also means less places sequestering carbon, as a well-designed agricultural system will do. To a degree using up fertile land is inevitable as populations grow, but the One Big Residential Suburb and One Big Shopping Mall approach make this worse, as they're a very inefficient use of space.

Agreed!!

We would do very well to preserve, enhance, and wisely cultivate the precious soil in and near our cities.


[/size]
Quote from: BicycleB
We humans will find a way.

This is a statement of faith, not fact. It's a statement of faith from the trinity of Science!, Progress! and Growth!



It appears to be, but I meant it as something else: an interruption to the assumption that progress is only possible in linear ways that we already recognize limits of. It's a fact that humans are creative, that new methods continue to be invented, and that there are inventable methods we haven't thought of yet. Also, methods whose details are not known yet can be recognized and described by class, which means we can reasonably conjecture that such classes can be developed.

If we didn't have so many workable technologies already for renewable energy, renewable energy would be an example of such a class. These technologies have improved, sometimes moving from primitive model to commercial tool, just during the time from when I started activist-ing to today. This progress is visible evidence that harnessing renewable energy is a highly achievable class of technology, even while we continue to devise improved details.

In fact, we are pretty clearly capable of harnessing far more power than we currently use and doing it purely from renewable sources. Not based on faith, based on actual projects that are already happening. So it's not that growth is unavoidably limited by the lack of infinite oil, for example. It's a question of whether we find the wisdom and focus to get off the oil train (and coal train) by building better systems.

Just this week, I assisted (in a small way) in possibly causing a utility scale solar project to actually happen. We’ll know more in a year or two about whether this one will come to pass, but the week’s experiences remind me of projects that feel similar in how they happened. Similar to how, in past experiences, I participated in the development of denser more walkable neighborhoods in my city, and created a still-functioning citizen group that encourages better use of precious soil in my neighborhood, and now am working on getting useful climate legislation passed in my country.

It's not faith if it happens in works.

The greatest fear of every well-off person is that someone poor will come and take their wealth, whether directly in the form of armed robbery or indirectly in the form of excessive taxes.

Every?? Ah... jeez, I'm the only counterexample needed for that one. The poor taking my wealth is far far far from my greatest fear. I am far more afraid of letting down the side by not doing as much as I could to build a better world before I pass from the earth.

That is a side issue compared to questions of this thread; just sharing in case the counterexample opens up possibilities.


Science may not have more breakthroughs, and in any case science can't do anything about conservation of mass and energy; fossil fuels once burned are gone forever. Sorry. Progress may not continue, or it won't be what we traditionally consider progress (more shiny stuff leading to our doing less physical work). Growth won't continue forever.


^Now these are key propositions! (Very invigorating discussion, by the way.)

So...true, science can't do anything about conservation of mass and energy. But there the possibilities are immense that we can improve the human condition, and perhaps the overall biosphere, by getting wiser and more efficient about using the mass and energy that are here on earth - conserving our resources much more efficiently, so speak.

I don't think energy is even the tricky part here. We're in the early to middle stages of handling it, but that one's clearly solvable, and we're likely to solve it. The Saudi oil minister who said the age of oil won't end because we run out of oil is going to be right, at least if oil is understood as an energy source. There will still be oil in the ground when we reach the point that energy is not the primary limit of our global society.

There are lots of other resources that are not renewable (like metals, rare earths, even silica that's in forms easy to use for silicon manufacturing) or not quickly renewable, like healthy soil. These will be limits much more than energy, I think. I suspect that the path forward on the ones like metals is much much better recycling, and more resource-efficient manufacturing. People are working on this stuff but we have a longer way to go. Soil is a trickier deal still. And we need to be careful about water, especially careful not to foul it, and not to waste groundwater. But all of these are achievable to a point where a global economy 10 times greater than today is something we can reasonably imagine building over a period of 80 to 100 years. Which is coincidentally about how long a 10x economic increase would take at the growth rates that have been occurring already.

I'm not expecting an economy that uses 10 times as much material, just one which gets 10 times as much value from efficiently re-using material as our current one does from wasting much of what we touch.

Forever is a long time, I won't argue forever. But it's obvious that improvement far beyond our current system is possible. It seems to me that as the shift to conservation gains momentum, the next stage of forever is something that our grandchildren will be able to figure out...if we have the wisdom to piece together a system that sustains them until that point.


In the face of resource constraints and climate change, it is certain that our lives will change...

It is not certain that our lives will change for the worse or better, that is up to us as a society...

I think it's better for us to plan things so we use less but still have decent lives.


I strongly agree with each of these points.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Aelias on October 15, 2019, 08:28:29 AM
I've gotta roll my eyes a bit at describing a few days of power outage as a "climate dystopia", but this article discussing some of the details of living with P&GE's decision to cut power in Northern California to avoid wildfires is an interesting one.  https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-blackouts-have-paralyzed-my-lake-county-town.html

This is the kind of thing I suspect will become more common in the next few years.   Not this past summer but the summer before, we had rolling brownouts on the hottest days because all the air conditioners were overtaxing the neglected power grid.  They seem to have fixed it for the moment, but when you have aging infrastructure that no on wants to pay to fix it, what else can you expect?

There may be no reasonable way to prepare for the "climate apocalypse", but you can easily prepare for the "climate inconveniences" that will become inevitable.  It's just good sense to have the supplies and know-how to get by for a few days or weeks without basic utilities like power, gas, and water. 

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 15, 2019, 10:26:44 AM
I've gotta roll my eyes a bit at describing a few days of power outage as a "climate dystopia", but this article discussing some of the details of living with P&GE's decision to cut power in Northern California to avoid wildfires is an interesting one.  https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-blackouts-have-paralyzed-my-lake-county-town.html

This is the kind of thing I suspect will become more common in the next few years.   Not this past summer but the summer before, we had rolling brownouts on the hottest days because all the air conditioners were overtaxing the neglected power grid.  They seem to have fixed it for the moment, but when you have aging infrastructure that no on wants to pay to fix it, what else can you expect?

There may be no reasonable way to prepare for the "climate apocalypse", but you can easily prepare for the "climate inconveniences" that will become inevitable.  It's just good sense to have the supplies and know-how to get by for a few days or weeks without basic utilities like power, gas, and water.

Rolling my eyes with you. The author complained bitterly about PG&E, but somehow neglected to mention who would be fitting the $67 billion worth of upgrades required to prevent having to shut off the power in the future. I also had to laugh at the USA Today article that was linked, and I paraphrase (because the MMM site crashed when I tried posting the quote), "Every state except Connecticut has a county whose median household income is less than the national median household income." Like this is the new measure of poverty, rather than a glowing statistic of equality (except for you, Nutmeggers). The humdinger though was him driving an hour and 40 minutes for wifi. (Note to Evan's future self: you can purchase a battery backup for your modem for a rather lesser amount than it costs to drive an hour and 40 minutes (presuming, of course, that the internet was available during the blackout).)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: js82 on October 15, 2019, 05:18:50 PM
As an aside, I notice a lot of people online writing that we need fewer people, but that's not true. In the USA, for example, if the richest 10% had the same consumption as the next richest 10% emissions would drop by 15-20%. Consistently it's not necessarily the bulk of humanity, but a lot of richer people who (admittedly through business choices) end up emitting wayyyyyyyyyyy more than poorer people.

You can't talk about resource consumption/conservation without talking about population.  There are 3 macro-level variables that matter: population, (per-capita) consumption, and efficiency.  All of these factors are highly impactful - their effects are multiplicative.

Any government that doesn't support educating its citizenry about their various contraceptive options and making sure those options are available, is blatantly negligent.  Likewise, failure to invest in technology that has the potential to bend efficiency curves over the long term, is also terribly negligent.

This isn't an "or" problem, it's an "and" problem.  Until the world starts treating it as an "and" problem - one that requires everyone to act, and act in multiple different ways - we're not going to make progress.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on October 15, 2019, 06:40:45 PM
Sure - I just don't see any discussion of how to curtail consumption of the richer classes in 1st world societies. We could make same huge progress there.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 15, 2019, 07:47:14 PM
Sure - I just don't see any discussion of how to curtail consumption of the richer classes in 1st world societies. We could make same huge progress there.
Consider who is leading the discussion.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on October 15, 2019, 08:52:48 PM
Hey Kyle, perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake (as is at times the case) are you talking about who is leading the discussion here, who is leading it at a government/policy level or who is leading it globally?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 16, 2019, 12:49:26 AM
Globally, the discussion of environmental concerns (nobody seems to have resource constraint concerns) is led by the well-off.

The well-off are not interested in discussing ways to reduce the consumption of the well-off. Instead we get stories of changing the consumption of the well-off - electric cars and all that. For example,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-think (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-think)

Notice the tone of the article. Progress is inevitable, governments must do something (though if progress is inevitable, why do governments need to do anything?), science will save us. Nowhere does it suggest that consuming less is part of it. No action is asked of the reader. The Guardian's audience is not the West's working class, or the world's poor, it's the urban middle class. In other words, the well-off, globally-speaking.


The well-off includes most of the members of this forum. There's an old thread around here somewhere where a person asks about emissions due to flying, and the solution, "don't fly" did not go down well at all.


We all have ways to justify doing things which we feel are wrong. This is not to tell anyone else what is right or wrong. But if you feel that causing large emissions is wrong, then you should not do so. Don't do things you think are wrong. If you say, "all men are created equal," perhaps you should free your slaves? If you are a climate scientist insisting there is a climate emergency, perhaps don't fly to that conference telling the world about it?


The climate change denialists, at least, match actions to words.


But again: resource constraints do exist. Whatever fossil fuels do or don't do to our climate, they are finite. I realise this goes against the religion of Progress! and Science!, but there it is. Conservation of mass and energy, and increasing entropy remain laws of nature. Bummer, eh?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 16, 2019, 04:32:37 AM
I prefer being a climate change denier with an extremely small carbon footprint.  Drives my liberal friends crazy.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EvenSteven on October 16, 2019, 05:56:21 AM
I would like to meekly and humbly suggest that the earth is not a closed system, so whatever the merits of resource conservation are, the law of conservation of mass and energy is not a particularly compelling argument.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 16, 2019, 09:48:43 AM

But again: resource constraints do exist. Whatever fossil fuels do or don't do to our climate, they are finite. I realise this goes against the religion of Progress! and Science!, but there it is. Conservation of mass and energy, and increasing entropy remain laws of nature. Bummer, eh?

As long as you keep the model that your discussion partners are fools whose minds are enslaved by a senseless religion of Progress! and Science!, you will misunderstand them as well as disrespect them. It's possible that instead of being who you think, some of the people discussing this with you are intelligent people who disagree with your views on constraints based on events they have personally observed. It's also possible for reasonable people to have come to different viewpionts on these matters.

I think it's even possible for people of different views on these matters to consider and engage with the logic of the opposite side thoughtfully. I suppose we've each been engaging with the other's logic with arguments that we think are compelling, but the other person does not.

Certainly my evidence presented so far is not compelling to you. I don't know what evidence would be persuasive, so I'm going to try to stop advocating for my belief that energy is not the limiting factor on our society's long term economy. It doesn't feel good on my end to be thought of as a mindless religious adherent, but I can't change someone's attribution error. In the meantime, it is obvious to me that your personal conservation efforts are helpful and admirable.

On the human respect front, which I think is important, I also respect that based on the assumptions you have, your conclusions would naturally follow. I also respect the existence the conservation of mass and energy, and that you are a discussion participant of goodwill. You are obviously a superintelligent person who follows his logic with impressive inegrity.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 16, 2019, 05:08:22 PM
It's not stupidity, it's self-interest.

Greer lays it out nicely.

https://www.ecosophia.net/heating-up-the-political-climate/

This isn't to expect that people should suddenly stop being self-interested. It's simply saying that we must consider that if we want to effect useful change. We must address people's self-interest rather than their moral sense.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 16, 2019, 08:02:08 PM
There's a lot to unpack in that article.

Ironically, he seems to have gotten the little ice age wrong.   The accepted cause is volcanic emissions, not a smallpox plague wiping out indigenous farms in NA.

Despite the conspiracy theories about progressive elites, I agree with much of his thesis about addressing climate change.    People are unwilling to reduce their lifestyle, and people in the developing world are in fact aspiring to our lifestyle.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: bacchi on October 17, 2019, 10:06:51 AM
Despite the conspiracy theories about progressive elites, I agree with much of his thesis about addressing climate change.    People are unwilling to reduce their lifestyle, and people in the developing world are in fact aspiring to our lifestyle.

Solution: Fewer people.

Population control propaganda campaigns have been successful and work quite rapidly too. One of the eastern bloc countries had one in the 60s. It worked so well that they had to reverse course to promote children.


Laws, like a carbon tax, will happen when the well-off starts to feel the pain. We're a decade away from that. Even those who acknowledge that it's happening still aren't in danger. Maybe when Miami and Houston and Sydney have climate refugees?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 17, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
Interesting mashup of an article. The intro and body appear to say that climate change activists are hysterical and overly apocalyptic, yet it also says something needs to be done and the rich (who are also the climate change activists) should be the ones to do it, essentially by spending less. Then it gives up on that actually happening and appears to conclude that we can solve the problem if we do the following instead:

Feed seaweed to cows so they fart less
Use hemp instead wood for things like making paper
Plant trees
Use "other appropriate technologies"
Eliminate extravagances like private jets

Closing quote: "That requires, of course, a sharply different attitude toward relations between humanity and nature than the one that's guided environmentalism for the last forty years or so."

I'm a little bit baffled, because nearly everything the author suggests appear to be suggestions that nearly every environmentalist I've ever known or read is in favor of. It kind of feels like the author is new to the environmental party but steeped in anti-wealth grievance, and knows about the super-rich Leo DiCaprios but is unfamiliar with the millions of ordinary climate activists and already-changing-behavior people (I count typical Mustachians among that last group - spending less, using bikes, etc). The vast majority of climate change activists don't fly in private jets.

On the bright side - it adds an article to the Clmate Apocalypse thread that says we shouldn't treat it like an apocalypse!   :)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Just Joe on October 17, 2019, 03:29:52 PM
The population density of a bunch of sky scrapers makes it a lot easier to build out good public transit and have it run frequently enough that people can get where they're going as fast or faster than in individual cars than if you're trying to provide the same quality of service to a bunch of single family homes.


Thats my dream too - reasonably dense population with fully electrified public transportation - trains, streetcars, busses etc.

Bicycles and ebikes and skateboards and boosted boards and...

My hope would be cities emulating the Dutch. Five story buildings that can be walked up. Lots of outside space to enjoy. Mixed use neighborhoods. Canals or light rail perhaps for moving heavy things in and out of the city.

My fear is cities that emulate the largest Indian or Asian cities where there is simply a massive number of vehicles of all types moving back and forth going - somewhere b/c it sells more cars/trucks/fuel/tires. I have little interest in the driving constantly to get things done model.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 18, 2019, 03:55:01 AM
Here's an article in Scientific American which should scare anyone expecting to be alive, or to have children or grandchildren expecting to be alive, in 60 years' time -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Actually, not too cheery either for any of us hoping to be alive in 30 years' time.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EvenSteven on October 18, 2019, 07:44:04 AM
Here's an article in Scientific American which should scare anyone expecting to be alive, or to have children or grandchildren expecting to be alive, in 60 years' time -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Actually, not too cheery either for any of us hoping to be alive in 30 years' time.

Sounds like a bunch of BS. From only the first part that is readable for me, they quote a UN official, and an organic industry activist, but no actual scientists or published scientific studies. Do they do so in the rest of it?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 18, 2019, 08:23:08 AM
Here's an article in Scientific American which should scare anyone expecting to be alive, or to have children or grandchildren expecting to be alive, in 60 years' time -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Actually, not too cheery either for any of us hoping to be alive in 30 years' time.

Sounds like a bunch of BS. From only the first part that is readable for me, they quote a UN official, and an organic industry activist, but no actual scientists or published scientific studies. Do they do so in the rest of it?
That seems to be a very reflexive hate on UN officials: the ones I've met have been serious people doing difficult jobs knowing that they need to be able to back up their public statements. Maria Helena Semedo made her statement about soil erosion in 2014 and it hasn't been challenged, as far as I am aware.

If you want to dig into the specifics, as a starting point for a synthesis of the scientific work you might try -

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf

and

http://www.fao.org/3/ca5697en/ca5697en.pdf

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 18, 2019, 08:31:23 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 18, 2019, 08:33:05 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.

Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable.  Period.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kris on October 18, 2019, 08:46:47 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.

Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable.  Period.

Right? Which I realized sometime in high school or early college. I definitely remember it was during the Reagan years.

It's odd to me that this isn't obvious to most thinking adults.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on October 18, 2019, 08:52:37 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.

Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable.  Period.

Right? Which I realized sometime in high school or early college. I definitely remember it was during the Reagan years.

It's odd to me that this isn't obvious to most thinking adults.

I think it is, I just think that it's human nature to tune out uncomfortable information.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 18, 2019, 08:59:48 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.

Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable.  Period.

Population growth is not sustainable, I will agree with you there (though I don't think anybody has a crystal ball that can peg the moment of maximum population). But consumption growth shouldn't be an inherently bad concept, in my opinion, as long as the consumption aligns with our values. Look at all of the extremely wealthy people in this world (including MMM) who have pledged to spend down their fortune on charitable causes: that is consumption. And as long as that consumption makes life easier for us overall, then we have economic growth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2019, 09:08:45 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.

Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable.  Period.

Population growth is not sustainable, I will agree with you there (though I don't think anybody has a crystal ball that can peg the moment of maximum population). But consumption growth shouldn't be an inherently bad concept, in my opinion, as long as the consumption aligns with our values. Look at all of the extremely wealthy people in this world (including MMM) who have pledged to spend down their fortune on charitable causes: that is consumption. And as long as that consumption makes life easier for us overall, then we have economic growth.

In what way is charitable giving consumption?

I think they meant material consumption more specifically if that changes anything. If you're referring to the consumption of services, then there may be some truth in that.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EvenSteven on October 18, 2019, 09:09:39 AM
Here's an article in Scientific American which should scare anyone expecting to be alive, or to have children or grandchildren expecting to be alive, in 60 years' time -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Actually, not too cheery either for any of us hoping to be alive in 30 years' time.

Sounds like a bunch of BS. From only the first part that is readable for me, they quote a UN official, and an organic industry activist, but no actual scientists or published scientific studies. Do they do so in the rest of it?
That seems to be a very reflexive hate on UN officials: the ones I've met have been serious people doing difficult jobs knowing that they need to be able to back up their public statements. Maria Helena Semedo made her statement about soil erosion in 2014 and it hasn't been challenged, as far as I am aware.

If you want to dig into the specifics, as a starting point for a synthesis of the scientific work you might try -

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf

and

http://www.fao.org/3/ca5697en/ca5697en.pdf

It was actually a reflexive hate on for Scientific American, not the UN. Calling an economist and an organic industry activist "not a scientist" isn't really an insult.

I'm 59 pages into the first link (then skipped ahead and read the section: Global soil status, processes and trends), with about 450 left to go. So far no assertions or supporting data that we will be out of soil and farming will end in 2074. Can you direct me a little?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 18, 2019, 09:11:46 AM
The difference is in trying to take responsibility for it.  Increasing population and consumption works in the short term, and regionally.  Companies can move or disappear as the math(or environment) starts to break down in a given area.  But to try to approach this globally is a completely different and unprecedented animal.  And our monetary system is a part of that.  Inflationary economies need constant growth!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 18, 2019, 09:16:57 AM
Here's an article in Scientific American which should scare anyone expecting to be alive, or to have children or grandchildren expecting to be alive, in 60 years' time -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Actually, not too cheery either for any of us hoping to be alive in 30 years' time.

Sounds like a bunch of BS. From only the first part that is readable for me, they quote a UN official, and an organic industry activist, but no actual scientists or published scientific studies. Do they do so in the rest of it?
That seems to be a very reflexive hate on UN officials: the ones I've met have been serious people doing difficult jobs knowing that they need to be able to back up their public statements. Maria Helena Semedo made her statement about soil erosion in 2014 and it hasn't been challenged, as far as I am aware.

If you want to dig into the specifics, as a starting point for a synthesis of the scientific work you might try -

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf

and

http://www.fao.org/3/ca5697en/ca5697en.pdf

It was actually a reflexive hate on for Scientific American, not the UN. Calling an economist and an organic industry activist "not a scientist" isn't really an insult.

I'm 59 pages into the first link (then skipped ahead and read the section: Global soil status, processes and trends), with about 450 left to go. So far no assertions or supporting data that we will be out of soil and farming will end in 2074. Can you direct me a little?
Section 7.2.1
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 18, 2019, 09:32:54 AM
In what way is charitable giving consumption?

I think they meant material consumption more specifically if that changes anything. If you're referring to the consumption of services, then there may be some truth in that.

I'll quote Wikipedia here: "Consumption, defined as spending for acquisition of utility...." Charity is spent, most of us hope, in the acquisition of utility.

Material consumption does not necessarily need to be an altogether bad thing. When we purchase a car that replaces a 15 mpg jalopy with a 100 mpg equivalent, I think most of us can agree that this consumption is a net positive for the world. When someone tears down an old, very inefficient home and rebuilds with a new, very efficient one, again, the consumption is probably a positive.

In my opinion, we should heavily tax consumption when it doesn't align with our values. We do this with things like cigarettes and excess electricity (when electric companies have tiered usage rates). The currently missing link (again, in my opinion) is the election of politicians whose values align with our own. I can only hope that the values of the populace will hit a critical mass that aligns with what I feel are the important values of our time.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2019, 09:41:26 AM
In what way is charitable giving consumption?

I think they meant material consumption more specifically if that changes anything. If you're referring to the consumption of services, then there may be some truth in that.

I'll quote Wikipedia here: "Consumption, defined as spending for acquisition of utility...." Charity is spent, most of us hope, in the acquisition of utility.

So spending done by charities is consumption, the act of giving to charities is not.

Quote
Material consumption does not necessarily need to be an altogether bad thing. When we purchase a car that replaces a 15 mpg jalopy with a 100 mpg equivalent, I think most of us can agree that this consumption is a net positive for the world. When someone tears down an old, very inefficient home and rebuilds with a new, very efficient one, again, the consumption is probably a positive.

In my opinion, we should heavily tax consumption when it doesn't align with our values. We do this with things like cigarettes and excess electricity (when electric companies have tiered usage rates). The currently missing link (again, in my opinion) is the election of politicians whose values align with our own. I can only hope that the values of the populace will hit a critical mass that aligns with what I feel are the important values of our time.

I don't think the point being made is that all consumption is bad, it's that our economic model is based on ever increasing consumption levels which is unsustainable. The only way I can maybe see this working out indefinitely is if most of that consumption becomes consumption of services rather than material goods.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: EvenSteven on October 18, 2019, 09:42:49 AM
Here's an article in Scientific American which should scare anyone expecting to be alive, or to have children or grandchildren expecting to be alive, in 60 years' time -

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Actually, not too cheery either for any of us hoping to be alive in 30 years' time.

Sounds like a bunch of BS. From only the first part that is readable for me, they quote a UN official, and an organic industry activist, but no actual scientists or published scientific studies. Do they do so in the rest of it?
That seems to be a very reflexive hate on UN officials: the ones I've met have been serious people doing difficult jobs knowing that they need to be able to back up their public statements. Maria Helena Semedo made her statement about soil erosion in 2014 and it hasn't been challenged, as far as I am aware.

If you want to dig into the specifics, as a starting point for a synthesis of the scientific work you might try -

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf

and

http://www.fao.org/3/ca5697en/ca5697en.pdf

It was actually a reflexive hate on for Scientific American, not the UN. Calling an economist and an organic industry activist "not a scientist" isn't really an insult.

I'm 59 pages into the first link (then skipped ahead and read the section: Global soil status, processes and trends), with about 450 left to go. So far no assertions or supporting data that we will be out of soil and farming will end in 2074. Can you direct me a little?
Section 7.2.1

The projections in this section are -0.3% crop yield per year out to 2050, for a total reduction of 10%. Is that what the article was referring to as the end of farming?

And what do we see when we look at yields in the years since this has been published? Do we actually see a reduction of 0.3% yield per year? It's hard to find a single world wide number, but yield in the US has been on a steady upward trend.

I'm not saying that soils aren't important, because they are very important. I agree that erosion is a problem and that climate change and agriculture contribute to it. But to assert that farming will end in 60 years seems to have no supporting evidence, and so hyperbolic that I'll dismiss it out of hand until I see some data for it other than an assertion in some pop-sci magazine.

Further, to suggest that a solution for erosion in agriculture is to switch to a farming system (organic) that needs more acreage, burns more diesel, and uses more tillage, is so counter intuitive that I would also need to see a lot of data to accept.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 18, 2019, 10:09:22 AM
So spending done by charities is consumption, the act of giving to charities is not.

Let me get this straight. You are interested in the eradication of malaria, so you donate your fortune to an anti-malaria campaign. They purchase gobs of mosquito nets and distribute them to Sub-Saharan Africans. Did you or did you not acquire utility out of that transaction (your dream of a malaria-free world, or at least a few more healthy people)? Would that utility have been acquired without your transaction?

Or are you suggesting that the use of a middleman negates consumption? Take the general contractor who's working on your house, who hires a subcontractor to install a toilet for you (to hop on the theme of a different thread). Surely that's not consumption, because ?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: former player on October 18, 2019, 10:12:09 AM
[…]

The projections in this section are -0.3% crop yield per year out to 2050, for a total reduction of 10%. Is that what the article was referring to as the end of farming?

And what do we see when we look at yields in the years since this has been published? Do we actually see a reduction of 0.3% yield per year? It's hard to find a single world wide number, but yield in the US has been on a steady upward trend.

I'm not saying that soils aren't important, because they are very important. I agree that erosion is a problem and that climate change and agriculture contribute to it. But to assert that farming will end in 60 years seems to have no supporting evidence, and so hyperbolic that I'll dismiss it out of hand until I see some data for it other than an assertion in some pop-sci magazine.

Further, to suggest that a solution for erosion in agriculture is to switch to a farming system (organic) that needs more acreage, burns more diesel, and uses more tillage, is so counter intuitive that I would also need to see a lot of data to accept.
I'm supposing that extrapolation of existing trends accumulating to 2080, set against projected population increases, would get to the gaps between production and demand stated.  But as the report makes clear, there are a lot of unknowns because the science is still pretty patchy on the world-wide scale.

I agree with you on organics: sadly the definition of "organic" seems to have been developed from a notional past state of pastoral bliss rather than being based on science, hasn't changed since first being developed, and has developed into a niche fetish that is getting in the way of developing widespread practices of sustainable agricultural development.

Agricultural yields in developed countries are of course highly reliant on fossil fuels both for fertilisers and for equipment, which is another problem.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: GuitarStv on October 18, 2019, 10:18:51 AM
So spending done by charities is consumption, the act of giving to charities is not.

Let me get this straight. You are interested in the eradication of malaria, so you donate your fortune to an anti-malaria campaign. They purchase gobs of mosquito nets and distribute them to Sub-Saharan Africans. Did you or did you not acquire utility out of that transaction (your dream of a malaria-free world, or at least a few more healthy people)? Would that utility have been acquired without your transaction?

Or are you suggesting that the use of a middleman negates consumption? Take the general contractor who's working on your house, who hires a subcontractor to install a toilet for you (to hop on the theme of a different thread). Surely that's not consumption, because ?


Charity is not like hiring a contractor.  When you hire a contractor, you decide upon an outcome (your house extension will be built and will be 50' by 60' when completed).  There's a hard and measurable outcome that is guaranteed by the contractor.  If the contractor doesn't do that work, you can sue him.

When you give money to a charity to 'fight malaria' there is no guaranteed outcome.  You're handing them money and hoping that something happens.  If malaria becomes worse afterwards, you have no legal recourse to sue them.

The former is consumption because you are personally enriched from the service.  The latter is not consumption because you give money with no expectation of personal enrichment (which is of course, the definition of charity).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 18, 2019, 10:28:36 AM
The global economy seems to function at odds with climate change goals.  Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable in a climate-prioritized framework.

Economic growth from consumption and population growth are not sustainable.  Period.

Right? Which I realized sometime in high school or early college. I definitely remember it was during the Reagan years.

It's odd to me that this isn't obvious to most thinking adults.


I suspect that I am a thinking adult. Depending on the definition of "consumption", it's not obvious to me. I may be odd, but at least consider the thought process.

If we are as inefficient in future as today, clearly continued consumption at present rates will someday exhaust our non-renewable resources. Growth of consumption through any method (population or mere per capita spending growth) will reach that exhaustion point even faster. So yes in that case economic growth through consumption is obviously unsustainable. So is continuing on exactly as we are. Can't do it.

But why should we remain inefficient? There's no reason to assume our current society is the most efficient of all possible societies. If consumption is defined as "using or receiving economic value", then we can increase the value without increasing the use of resources. That's what I mean by increasing efficiency. A simple example would be to produce things less wastefully. Another example would be to provide valuable services that prevent waste of non-renewable materials. In the long term, whether or not we are able to sustain increased economic value depends on whether we learn to create economic value based on reuse of resources, or use of renewable resources. We can do that. We don't know yet how much value we can create in this all-renewable, all-reuse economy, this sustainable economy, but it's possible that the ceiling is higher than today's total economy, which implies that we may be able to grow sustainably with increasing consumption. Obviously in that case, increasing population may be possible too. So the primary limit isn't population, it's failure to renew renewables and re-use nonrenewables. We haven't made the pivot from extraction economy to sustainable economy yet, but we can.

The soil issue is a good example. The UN report seems to say soil productivity will decline with current practices but can sustainably increase with better practices. It doesn't say we are unable to increase productivity. It says we must make changes and act wisely in order to increase productivity.

The IPCC reports on climate take similar positions. They don't say we're doomed, or that we must accept the end of economic growth. They say that climate-optimized paths are better than ones that are not climate optimized, partly because climate-optimized is safer and produces less human suffering, but also because paths that are not climate optimized eventually produce conditions that weaken the global economy broadly. The IPCC's analyses imply that the long term path of maximum economic growth isn't outside of the set of "climate optimized" set of paths; it's within the set of "climate optimized" paths.

Implicit in the paragraph above is that if we pursue climate heating prevention and mitigation ASAP, we preserve the ability to have considerable economic growth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2019, 10:44:57 AM
So spending done by charities is consumption, the act of giving to charities is not.

Let me get this straight. You are interested in the eradication of malaria, so you donate your fortune to an anti-malaria campaign. They purchase gobs of mosquito nets and distribute them to Sub-Saharan Africans. Did you or did you not acquire utility out of that transaction (your dream of a malaria-free world, or at least a few more healthy people)? Would that utility have been acquired without your transaction?

Or are you suggesting that the use of a middleman negates consumption? Take the general contractor who's working on your house, who hires a subcontractor to install a toilet for you (to hop on the theme of a different thread). Surely that's not consumption, because ?

Let's take a step back. I think other posters were using the literal definition of consumption-the using up of a resource, not the economic definition. Currently our economic growth is dependent on literal consumption.

I should have said that as soon as you quoted the economic definition of consumption.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 18, 2019, 11:16:03 AM
So spending done by charities is consumption, the act of giving to charities is not.

Let me get this straight. You are interested in the eradication of malaria, so you donate your fortune to an anti-malaria campaign. They purchase gobs of mosquito nets and distribute them to Sub-Saharan Africans. Did you or did you not acquire utility out of that transaction (your dream of a malaria-free world, or at least a few more healthy people)? Would that utility have been acquired without your transaction?

Or are you suggesting that the use of a middleman negates consumption? Take the general contractor who's working on your house, who hires a subcontractor to install a toilet for you (to hop on the theme of a different thread). Surely that's not consumption, because ?


Charity is not like hiring a contractor.  When you hire a contractor, you decide upon an outcome (your house extension will be built and will be 50' by 60' when completed).  There's a hard and measurable outcome that is guaranteed by the contractor.  If the contractor doesn't do that work, you can sue him.

When you give money to a charity to 'fight malaria' there is no guaranteed outcome.  You're handing them money and hoping that something happens.  If malaria becomes worse afterwards, you have no legal recourse to sue them.

The former is consumption because you are personally enriched from the service.  The latter is not consumption because you give money with no expectation of personal enrichment (which is of course, the definition of charity).

If I give $20 to the homeless person on the side of the road, I've increased consumption, because presumably that homeless person will spend that money on something. It doesn't matter whether the personal benefit to me is tangible or ethereal (in the sense that I feel good about helping somebody else), just as it doesn't matter whether I've personally consumed the resources that the money was spent on (if I buy a thousand hamburgers and give them away on the street, is this not consumption?).

I'd argue that just about every monetary transaction goes toward consumption (including taxes but excluding theft). Some transactions provide much more economic utility than others, but we as Mustachians know that already. Additionally, some transactions provide us personally with more utility, whereas others are community-oriented (such as charity).
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 18, 2019, 11:31:01 AM
So then, a good step in the right direction would be to sell products and services that are whole: that is, they outline the entire impact of the product from raw materials to returning to raw materials, so that the entire impact of the product can be assessed and priced.  I don't see how we can even attempt to correct climate change without addressing consumption, whether economic consumption or environmental consumption.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2019, 11:35:05 AM
So spending done by charities is consumption, the act of giving to charities is not.

Let me get this straight. You are interested in the eradication of malaria, so you donate your fortune to an anti-malaria campaign. They purchase gobs of mosquito nets and distribute them to Sub-Saharan Africans. Did you or did you not acquire utility out of that transaction (your dream of a malaria-free world, or at least a few more healthy people)? Would that utility have been acquired without your transaction?

Or are you suggesting that the use of a middleman negates consumption? Take the general contractor who's working on your house, who hires a subcontractor to install a toilet for you (to hop on the theme of a different thread). Surely that's not consumption, because ?


Charity is not like hiring a contractor.  When you hire a contractor, you decide upon an outcome (your house extension will be built and will be 50' by 60' when completed).  There's a hard and measurable outcome that is guaranteed by the contractor.  If the contractor doesn't do that work, you can sue him.

When you give money to a charity to 'fight malaria' there is no guaranteed outcome.  You're handing them money and hoping that something happens.  If malaria becomes worse afterwards, you have no legal recourse to sue them.

The former is consumption because you are personally enriched from the service.  The latter is not consumption because you give money with no expectation of personal enrichment (which is of course, the definition of charity).

If I give $20 to the homeless person on the side of the road, I've increased consumption, because presumably that homeless person will spend that money on something. It doesn't matter whether the personal benefit to me is tangible or ethereal (in the sense that I feel good about helping somebody else), just as it doesn't matter whether I've personally consumed the resources that the money was spent on (if I buy a thousand hamburgers and give them away on the street, is this not consumption?).

Well now I'm confused as to what you're trying to say again.

The original point was that economic stability dependent on ever growing consumption(literal) is not sustainable. Whether that consumption is for a noble cause or is wasteful is beside the point.

The middleman question and who the consumer is when money is given to charity is an interesting thought exercise but it really doesn't matter for the discussion at hand. By the economic definition someone who gives money to charity and receives happiness in return is a consumer, I think you're right about that, but then again so is someone who buys land to create a nature preserve. Obviously that's not the type of consumption that was being discussed.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Boofinator on October 18, 2019, 12:06:51 PM
Well now I'm confused as to what you're trying to say again.

The original point was that economic stability dependent on ever growing consumption(literal) is not sustainable. Whether that consumption is for a noble cause or is wasteful is beside the point.

The middleman question and who the consumer is when money is given to charity is an interesting thought exercise but it really doesn't matter for the discussion at hand. By the economic definition someone who gives money to charity and receives happiness in return is a consumer, I think you're right about that, but then again so is someone who buys land to create a nature preserve. Obviously that's not the type of consumption that was being discussed.

I think perhaps we may be thinking about two different things when discussing consumption. Perhaps you're using the term 'consumption growth' in the same sense that I would use the term 'resource extraction growth'. I agree that resource extraction rates have a finite limit (as do pollution limits).

As a side note: I don't believe that economic stability requires consumption growth (at least in real terms); modern Japan might make a good example here where consumption growth has essentially stalled for decades. Some people may desire consumption growth for personal enrichment (including those who want to see the price of equities increase at higher rates), but as far as I'm aware it is in no way a requirement for economic stability.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2019, 12:41:31 PM
Well now I'm confused as to what you're trying to say again.

The original point was that economic stability dependent on ever growing consumption(literal) is not sustainable. Whether that consumption is for a noble cause or is wasteful is beside the point.

The middleman question and who the consumer is when money is given to charity is an interesting thought exercise but it really doesn't matter for the discussion at hand. By the economic definition someone who gives money to charity and receives happiness in return is a consumer, I think you're right about that, but then again so is someone who buys land to create a nature preserve. Obviously that's not the type of consumption that was being discussed.

I think perhaps we may be thinking about two different things when discussing consumption. Perhaps you're using the term 'consumption growth' in the same sense that I would use the term 'resource extraction growth'. I agree that resource extraction rates have a finite limit (as do pollution limits).

As a side note: I don't believe that economic stability requires consumption growth (at least in real terms); modern Japan might make a good example here where consumption growth has essentially stalled for decades. Some people may desire consumption growth for personal enrichment (including those who want to see the price of equities increase at higher rates), but as far as I'm aware it is in no way a requirement for economic stability.

Almost. I think consumption is a bit more broad than extraction because it includes things like environmental damage. Pollution consumes the environment without extracting it. Also extraction doesn't necessarily mean that the resource is used up (even though they usually go hand in hand).

Quote
As a side note: I don't believe that economic stability requires consumption growth (at least in real terms); modern Japan might make a good example here where consumption growth has essentially stalled for decades. Some people may desire consumption growth for personal enrichment (including those who want to see the price of equities increase at higher rates), but as far as I'm aware it is in no way a requirement for economic stability.

I agree that stability does not require consumption growth, however I do believe our current economic system is highly dependent on it.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 18, 2019, 01:45:24 PM
Well this thread took a turn into the esoteric.

I don’t get the $20-to-a-bum analogy at all.  You have $20; presumably that’s going to be used for something, whether it’s to buy yourself a shrub at the local nursery or if it pays for some homeless person to buy a couple of cheeseburgers.  If you invest it, that money will still be used by a corporation or a government to do something.
Bottom line - the spending of capital (“consumption”) isn’t equal regardless of what’s purchased.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 19, 2019, 12:02:42 AM
So then, a good step in the right direction would be to sell products and services that are whole: that is, they outline the entire impact of the product from raw materials to returning to raw materials, so that the entire impact of the product can be assessed and priced.  I don't see how we can even attempt to correct climate change without addressing consumption, whether economic consumption or environmental consumption.
Well, we have rather a lot of nutrition information on food packaging and yet we have more overweight and obese people than ever, so I'm not sure that yet more information is the answer for consumers.

Following deregulation and free trade, we in the West have found our manufacturing industry disappear and go to China, with lower wages and even lower workplace safety and environmental regulation. Why? Because the stuff ends up cheaper.

Thus, information is not a very strong changer of market behaviour, but price is. So if you're looking for market solutions, then changing the price is most effective. Now, obviously there are all kinds of environmental impacts, but fossil fuel consumption is a pretty good proxy for most of them. You can't really mine, refine and enrich uranium without using fossil fuels, for example. Thus, changing the price of fossil fuels would be a strong market signal encouraging changes in consumption.

A sudden change would simply cause recessions, since many people have no options. Fossil fuels differ from tobacco and alcohol - undesireable consumption - in that while people can do entirely without tobacco and alcohol, they can't do without some form of lighting, heating/cooling and transport, and the various goods and services requiring energy inputs. In this respect, we would need a carbon tax to act like a sugar or junk food tax - encouraging people to choose something else instead.

But we must have the something else actually available. I can't shift from car to train if there are no trains running. So we'd have to introduce the tax at a low, essentially nominal level, and use the revenue to build alternatives, and gradually increase the price.

The issues are whether the revenue would actually be used for that, and whether the rate would be increased as planned, kept the same, decreased or whatever - as a political football like other forms of tax are. As well, many punitive taxes government become addicted to, and since they use the punitive tax to reduce other taxes, become reluctant to actually try to abolish the thing they're supposedly punishing. See for example alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

Of course, any consumption tax is inherently regressive, in that the poor have more of their spending as non-discretionary. Thinking of here in Australia, household on $150,000 can choose whether or not to take that overseas flight, but a household on $20,000 can't choose whether to travel to that part-time minimum wage job.

One solution to this could be a UBI of carbon. Let's say for example a country has 10t of emissions per person, everyone could be issued 10,000 carbons (equivalent to a kg of carbon dioxide). No company would be permitted to sell, import or export fossil fuels without the requisite number of carbon permits accompanying the stuff. People could sell their carbon vouchers, or hold onto them. Rio Tinto's CEO would get his 10,000 vouchers, but so would Jenny the single mum in the crappy part of town, and he'd have to buy them from her somehow if he wanted his company to keep being able to get oil out of the ground.

If we really wanted to address pollution, then rather than calculating the CO2 equivalent emissions, we'd just go by the weight of actual carbon in the fossil fuel. Suddenly coal would be much, much less attractive than natural gas.

In either case we could then reduce the amount of carbon vouchers each year, logically we would do this in a way that kept the price about the same. If for example they traded at $1 each with 10,000 per person, after 5 years we might find so much other stuff put in that people didn't need as many carbon vouchers, they were now trading at $0.50 - well, okay, drop it to 9,000 and see what happens. I'd err on the side of issuing too many to begin with, just to minimise the chances of it all causing a recession.

Tradeable carbon vouchers as a UBI would be a less regressive carbon tax than a simple 10% or whatever, and simply attaching it to fossil fuels would let the pricing effects just flow through naturally to the rest of the economy.

The vouchers would never decline to zero, because there are non-burning uses of fossil fuels such as plastics and other chemicals, and there are some areas where there are no real substitutes, like coking coal for steel manufacture. But it's reasonable to expect they could drop 90% in 50 years.

Obviously, things like land-clearing and other poor agricultural practices would still cause emissions, but those are harder to quantify, and currently are connected to fossil fuel use anyway - land-clearing isn't being done by guys with shovels and axes, after all, and taxing natural gas would flow on to nitrate fertiliser costs, and so on. That a solution is not a complete solution doesn't mean it's useless or shouldn't be tried. Start with something, see how you go.

I'm not holding my breath, though. A very limited carbon trading scheme was brought in a decade ago in Australia and quickly abolished. Governments, especially federal governments, tend to be followers rather than leaders. We need our own behaviour to be something governments can follow. For a start, climate scientists need to stop flying to international climate change conferences. "But it's urgent!" If it's so urgent, we don't need to know the details precisely, we just need to start causing less emissions right now. Teleconference or write a letter.

But I'm not waiting for them. Because I work from home, my only necessary travel is taking the kids to school (3.5km) and going to the shops (1-4km); my wife works a place she can take the train to. I've used my car once this week, less than 10km total. We pay an extra 5.5c/kWh for wind-generated electricity, but use less than we did before so the net cost is the same. And we buy whatever's seasonal at the grocery stores - the cheaper stuff tends to be whatever's in season somewhere in the state, minimising the food miles.

And so on. We've taken some years to arrange our lives so we can do this. It's not a life of miserable deprivation any more than the frugality necessary for FIRE is. You begin by reducing outright wastefulness. Our society is a wasteful industrial society - this means that we produce so much stuff we actually waste it. If you don't believe me, visit a landfill some day, as well as all the useful materials tossed away, there is working machinery, intact clothing and furniture tossed away, all of which had an energy cost, and thus a carbon cost.

Anyone pursuing FIRE understands it's not good to be wasteful. I find it a bit strange that an environmental conscience isn't more common in this community. But then, I'm a camo green at heart.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 19, 2019, 11:41:23 AM
Of course, any consumption tax is inherently regressive, in that the poor have more of their spending as non-discretionary. Thinking of here in Australia, household on $150,000 can choose whether or not to take that overseas flight, but a household on $20,000 can't choose whether to travel to that part-time minimum wage job.

In Canada we have a consumption tax called the goods and services tax.   In order to (try to) keep it from being regressive, it doesn't apply to certain essentials like food.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on October 19, 2019, 01:44:23 PM
A fun way to learn about some solutions to climate change:

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/04/specials/climate-change-solutions-quiz/?fbclid=IwAR3E7XuVg8bOcXddPvNE313mnmcTftLYWyOna49ICrJftUU3WcuIJYqag6U
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Montecarlo on October 19, 2019, 01:50:22 PM
people can do entirely without tobacco and alcohol,


How dare you!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 19, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks a capitalist economy can grow while using less resources. Turns out somebody just wrote a book about it.

https://marker.medium.com/capitalism-is-helping-us-use-less-stuff-no-really-45cfa27b12b8
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Wrenchturner on October 19, 2019, 02:27:33 PM
I like the idea of a carbon UBI/ration.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: bacchi on October 19, 2019, 04:08:18 PM
I like the idea of a carbon UBI/ration.

It sounds difficult to administer.

I can also see a situation where someone sells their excess credits and then doesn't have enough for fuel in the winter. Or are they only usable by companies?

A straight up tax with a low-income tax credit seems much easier. Or much stricter standards for cars and trucks and machinery.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 19, 2019, 05:28:56 PM

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks a capitalist economy can grow while using less resources. Turns out somebody just wrote a book about it.
It doesn't matter. That we change from 20mpg to 40mpg cars, for example, doesn't change the fundamental problem - that we are burning the resource, and once burned, it's gone forever. In the West our increases in consumption and pollution are masked by our outsourcing manufacturing to other countries. The growth is in service industries.

I work in the service industry - I own a training gym - and this exists on the back of a lot of resources. The gym itself consumes relatively little, just a bit of electricity and water. But it can only exist as a business because people drive to it, and it only needs to exist because people drive to it. Because this huge amount of cheap energy means we barely have to move our bodies, we have to move our bodies formally in a gym setting to avoid becoming gelatinous blobs of sloth.

What cheap energy does for us is really not appreciated by people. It saves stupendous amounts of time and labour. As the saying goes, if you think fuel is too expensive, get out and push. Without cheap energy, 90% of our lives are spent within 2 miles of home, and 99% within 20 miles. Most of our day is spent washing and mending clothing, growing and preparing food, maintaining the leaky roof, and so on. Without cheap energy there is no surplus to allow people to become trainers or accountants or lawyers, and without cheap energy there is no feminism or freedom for women (the first suffragettes were from the middle class, which in the 19th century was defined as "well-off enough to hire servants" - and cheap energy is a servant).

In Canada we have a consumption tax called the goods and services tax.   In order to (try to) keep it from being regressive, it doesn't apply to certain essentials like food.

Same here in Australia. Or rather, it does not apply to "fresh" food. Fresh fruit and vegies, bread and meat and so on don't have GST - but biscuits and lemonade and cheezels and TV dinners and restaurant meals have GST. Which is why I'm sceptical of a junk food tax: we already have one, really, we just call it a goods and services tax. And with or without a tax, it's not like a KFC bucket is cheaper than getting chicken and cooking it yourself. But people still do it.



I can also see a situation where someone sells their excess credits and then doesn't have enough for fuel in the winter. Or are they only usable by companies?

A straight up tax with a low-income tax credit seems much easier. Or much stricter standards for cars and trucks and machinery.

There's a zillion ways you could do things, but if they're tradeable then you pay for them, this is why you'd start with a surplus of them. But like a carbon tax, if instituted by a government they are most likely to be used to benefit the well-off. If there isn't a carbon tax in your country it's because nobody in government has yet thought of a way to make it benefit their campaign donors.

Emission standards don't mean much in terms of resource depletion. We need to use less, and eventually to use none at all.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 19, 2019, 06:18:00 PM


If there was carbon tax is divided per person and directly returned to the citizens in equal shares, poor people would benefit financially instead of suffering a net cost.

Such a tax wouldn't be a hard cap like a ration, but would be easier to administer.


Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on October 19, 2019, 06:53:33 PM


If there was carbon tax is divided per person and directly returned to the citizens in equal shares, poor people would benefit financially instead of suffering a net cost.

Such a tax wouldn't be a hard cap like a ration, but would be easier to administer.

A carbon tax also provides a more consistent economic incentive than Kyle's carbon voucher program.

One of the problems with cap-and-trade style systems is that prices are unpredictable from year to year. If emissions decline but the cap doesn't shrink fast enough, the cost of buying vouchers will be close to zero. If there aren't enough vouchers to go around after easy sources if mitigation are exhausted, the price of those vouchers can increase dramatically because for a lot of carbon emission sources change requires long term multi-year investments (whether from improved infrastructure or investing in R&D).

A carbon tax provides a known price of carbon emissions for years into the future (particularly if it has a built in ramp up of prices in future years), which means it is easier for people and companies to make long term decisions about lifestyle changes, investments, research, etc so we'd see larger reductions in emissions.

And as you point out, if returns its revenue to the population as a UBI it would be progressive rather than regressive. It'd be much harder for politicians to cut the tax in future years if it's taking money out of the pockets of the voters who elected them than if the carbon tax is just spent on other green new deal wish list items. The difficulty of repealing a carbon tax + UBI gives even more future price certainty to companies and hence even more investment in ways to reduce emissions to bring down costs.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 19, 2019, 07:18:05 PM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.  If the slumlords that run those countries loosen their purse strings and allow a bit of trickle down to increase those folks living standards, I think they are going to love getting vehicles, central heat, hot water, air conditioning and are not going to give a hoot about the climate change problem.  Yeh - Could be billions of people in that situation.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on October 19, 2019, 07:24:48 PM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.

If it puts extra money in their pockets every month then yes, I predict those people living on the very least will rapidly become the most ardent supporters of a carbon tax.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 19, 2019, 08:52:20 PM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.  If the slumlords that run those countries loosen their purse strings and allow a bit of trickle down to increase those folks living standards, I think they are going to love getting vehicles, central heat, hot water, air conditioning and are not going to give a hoot about the climate change problem.  Yeh - Could be billions of people in that situation.

Those billions of people should receive enough carbon dividend to pay for more vehicles, central heat, hot water, air conditioning than they had before the tax.

I am favor of this plan because I think it will help the poor more than the rich. Most of the paying would be done by the rich, who spend the most. Most of the receiving would be done by the poor, who come out ahead in this system. If you want to help the poor, this climate plan helps them more than any other I am aware of.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 20, 2019, 01:56:46 AM
Which is why it'll never be brought in.

For those unconcerned about resources: would we really be considering mining 5km down underwater if there were better options?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/20/cook-islands-manager-of-worlds-biggest-marine-park-says-she-lost-job-for-backing-sea-mining-moratorium
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 20, 2019, 06:44:32 AM
Per what I could garner from Wikipedia, Manganese is not all that rare.  I doubt whether the deposits are "played" out.  Since the nodules lie on the sea floor, perhaps someone feels that they could gather the material more cheaply than other means which extract the metal from nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese

It could be an opportunity to create jobs and additional revenue for the Cook Islands.

History teaches us that it was the coal miners in England and the steam engines of Newcomen and Watt that set the Industrial Revolution in motion.  I guess this sea mining is merely an extension of that process that began long ago.  Whoever is financing this sea bed extraction may get very rich if their investment pays off.

I don't see it producing much in the way of additional greenhouse gases.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 20, 2019, 07:57:18 AM
We know so little about deep sea ecosystems and how they interact with the rest of the ocean ecosystems that Cook Islanders are gambling their ocean won't be affected.  Version X of dark satanic mills?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 20, 2019, 08:55:43 AM
We know so little about deep sea ecosystems and how they interact with the rest of the ocean ecosystems that Cook Islanders are gambling their ocean won't be affected.  Version X of dark satanic mills?

You can fit every scientist that is actively studying the deep sea ecosystems into a high school gymnasium.  Meanwhile, it makes up about 68% of earth’s total surface area.

It’s laughable how little we know. Most studies involve a few sediment cores over an area the size of Texas. Every expedition finds dozens of critters formerly unknown to science (aka “new species”).  Even reconstructing basic food webs is a giant-flipping-guess fort he deep sea (“well, there’s these hydrothermal vents which have symbionts bacteria... and some matter falling from above... and then somehow that gets to large fish and mobile invertebrates”)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 20, 2019, 09:50:11 AM
Well - I wouldn't worry about it.  Seems like this would largely be a new technology.  The conventional mining of manganese has had many years to work the bugs out.  As it has been done for many years, techniques have been improved and costs have been driven down.  Undersea mining looks to be a risky investment.  Mining is a boom and bust boondocks industry.  The undersea mining practice may never even begin.  Looks like it is still pretty limited worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining)

Given the choice, where would you put your money?

On the flip side, could there possibly be positive benefits to stirring up the bottom?  Will there be minerals in the water that will feed the small organisms in the water?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 20, 2019, 09:55:41 AM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.

If it puts extra money in their pockets every month then yes, I predict those people living on the very least will rapidly become the most ardent supporters of a carbon tax.

But will they use the extra money to buy cars, motorcycles and scooters?    They can support the tax, but not its intent.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: bacchi on October 20, 2019, 10:06:52 AM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.

If it puts extra money in their pockets every month then yes, I predict those people living on the very least will rapidly become the most ardent supporters of a carbon tax.

But will they use the extra money to buy cars, motorcycles and scooters?    They can support the tax, but not its intent.

Increased emissions standards. Major infrastructure changes.

We can use more than one tool to combat climate change.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 20, 2019, 10:07:47 AM
Which is why it'll never be brought in.

For those unconcerned about resources: would we really be considering mining 5km down underwater if there were better options?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/20/cook-islands-manager-of-worlds-biggest-marine-park-says-she-lost-job-for-backing-sea-mining-moratorium

I haven't seen any people on this board who are unconcerned about resources - that description looks like an attribution error.

I think that scarcity of non-renewable resources should be met by minimizing use and improving re-use, not by excessively expanding mining. Fwiw, I am in favor of protecting the marine park discussed in the article, not mining it.

ETA: That said, of course any individual company that sees a short term advantage can try to mine something, unless the rest of us stop them. That doesn't mean that mining it is a better choice for we the human species, or for the biosphere. It only means that someone imagined they would earn a short term profit. So we certainly could be considering underwater mining even if there are better options.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 20, 2019, 10:46:35 AM
Well - I wouldn't worry about it.  Seems like this would largely be a new technology.  The conventional mining of manganese has had many years to work the bugs out.  As it has been done for many years, techniques have been improved and costs have been driven down.  Undersea mining looks to be a risky investment.  Mining is a boom and bust boondocks industry.  The undersea mining practice may never even begin.  Looks like it is still pretty limited worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining)

Given the choice, where would you put your money?

On the flip side, could there possibly be positive benefits to stirring up the bottom?  Will there be minerals in the water that will feed the small organisms in the water?

I have a colleague who studies the potential impacts of deep-sea mining, dredging and drilling.  Her research is precisely WHY I worry about such techniques. 
It’s largely ungoverned, under-regulated and preprioratory.  Because there’s so little baseline data and because there’s zero monitoring going on, a company can royally f-up a deep-sea ecosystem and no one will likely know.  EVen if they do, the response becomes “prove-it”.

It seems unlikely that there will be positive benefits to stirring up the bottom.  Sediment from the deep sea (ave depth 4,000 meters, or over 2 miles) doesn’t migrate to the euphotic zone where photosynthesis occurs, which is what people are talking about when we discuss ‘seeding’ the ocean with minerals to trigger phytoplankton blooms.  Almost all mining minerals are denser than seawater, and hence sink.  Hydrocarbons (e.g. crude oil) is less dense, which is why blowouts like the deep-sea horizon are so destructive to shallow-water environements even though they begin very deep... the oil eventually floats to the surface.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 20, 2019, 02:15:04 PM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.

If it puts extra money in their pockets every month then yes, I predict those people living on the very least will rapidly become the most ardent supporters of a carbon tax.

But will they use the extra money to buy cars, motorcycles and scooters?    They can support the tax, but not its intent.

Increased emissions standards. Major infrastructure changes.

We can use more than one tool to combat climate change.

Increased emissions standards?   The US is having a big internal fight about making emissions standards more lenient...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 20, 2019, 05:46:29 PM
You can come up with a really good tax plan to alleviate or even end greenhouse emissions, but I'll still bet that those people living in the vast slums of the world are not going to be ardent supporters.

If it puts extra money in their pockets every month then yes, I predict those people living on the very least will rapidly become the most ardent supporters of a carbon tax.

But will they use the extra money to buy cars, motorcycles and scooters?    They can support the tax, but not its intent.

Increased emissions standards. Major infrastructure changes.

We can use more than one tool to combat climate change.

Increased emissions standards?   The US is having a big internal fight about making emissions standards more lenient...
I wouldn't characterize it as a "big internal fight".  Most of the automakers have signed onto the new standards, as have 23 states representing over 2/3rds of the population.  It has broad support among the public.  But Obama passed it so the current administration is trying to repeal, despite the wishes of state governments, industry and the public in general.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 20, 2019, 05:51:17 PM
You can have tighter emission standards, but with the big trucks that seem to predominate perhaps actual emissions are higher.  People love their big trucks.  The most ardent supporters love their big diesel trucks.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 20, 2019, 05:52:20 PM
I haven't seen any people on this board who are unconcerned about resources - that description looks like an attribution error.
I'm judging by actions rather than words.


In any case, the public discussion is not about how much resources we have, but the effects of their use.


It's a funny thing. A decade or so ago there was a strong movement of concern about peak oil. This kind of fizzled out after the GFC, good old "demand destruction" dropped prices, ie economies went into miserable recession. Anyway, I saw a strange thing... a lot of peak oilers were climate change denialists. But when I went over to the climate change discussion groups, many of them denied peak oil.


From this I came up with Problem Exclusion Principle. The Pauli exclusion principle is one in physics, that two electrons can't occupy the same space (or more precisely, have the same four quantum numbers, but anyway). There seems to be a Problem Exclusion Principle, that once a person has decided X is a problem, they then insist that other problems either don't exist at all, or are merely expressions of X.


For X, put in climate change, resource depletion, the patriarchy, debt-burdened money supply, or whatever. Obviously this is a psychological defence mechanism. If X is the root of all problems and we sort out X, then all our problems are solved and we ascend upon a sunbeam into heaven for eternal bliss. But if X is a problem and Y is a problem and Z is a problem and they're all independent - well, it gets a bit overwhelming and we're a bit lost.


And this is why I am keen on changes which are solutions to several problems. For example, take the guidelines:


1. don't fly
2. bring work and home closer
3. trips under 5km walk; under 15km, cycle; over 15km, public transport


these address fossil fuel depletion, climate change, personal financial problems, and physical and mental health. Even if one of these things doesn't seem like an issue to you, one of the others will, and they help with all. You can quibble with the details, of course, and this is indeed a good way to avoid the discomfort of action. But broadly-speaking at a city-wide level they are true and good solutions to these several problems.


Likewise eating seasonal and local food, eating less processed food, using less electricity, and so on.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on October 20, 2019, 06:06:47 PM
I think this may be appropriate somewhere in this discussion...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on October 20, 2019, 06:12:43 PM
It's a funny thing. A decade or so ago there was a strong movement of concern about peak oil. This kind of fizzled out after the GFC, good old "demand destruction" dropped prices, ie economies went into miserable recession.

I too remember peak oil being a significant topic of discussion about a decade ago. Here in the USA gasoline broke the psychologically important $3/gallon barrier and kept on going.

I think the emergence and widespread adoption of new fracking technology has a lot more to do with the reason we don't hear as much about peak oil anymore now that the effects of the Great Recession on oil demand is a thing of the past. Doesn't help at all with the CO2 emissions obviously, but enough to stave off the particular flavor of societal collapse folks like James Kunstler were sure we were headed into back in 2008.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on October 20, 2019, 06:20:31 PM
It's a funny thing. A decade or so ago there was a strong movement of concern about peak oil. This kind of fizzled out after the GFC, good old "demand destruction" dropped prices, ie economies went into miserable recession.

I too remember peak oil being a significant topic of discussion about a decade ago. Here in the USA gasoline broke the psychologically important $3/gallon barrier and kept on going.

I think the emergence and widespread adoption of new fracking technology has a lot more to do with the reason we don't hear as much about peak oil anymore now that the effects of the Great Recession on oil demand is a thing of the past. Doesn't help at all with the CO2 emissions obviously, but enough to stave off the particular flavor of societal collapse folks like James Kunstler were sure we were headed into back in 2008.

Yes, there seems to be a misunderstanding that when oil becomes more expensive, society will move to other technologies to conserve it.  If the oil price triples overnight, it will create a shock.  If it triples over the next ten years, people will use less oil for transport, heating and electricity generation as they move to different technologies.  Those technologies are available right now, they just cost more and require change.  One of the tenets of MMM is to make sure you aren't spending too much due to inertia (check your insurance...).  People are not good at this until it starts to hurt them financially, then they will change their transport options.  Businesses are more attuned to costs and hence would lead the way on some of these.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 20, 2019, 06:23:45 PM
It's a funny thing. A decade or so ago there was a strong movement of concern about peak oil. This kind of fizzled out after the GFC, good old "demand destruction" dropped prices, ie economies went into miserable recession.

I too remember peak oil being a significant topic of discussion about a decade ago. Here in the USA gasoline broke the psychologically important $3/gallon barrier and kept on going.

I think the emergence and widespread adoption of new fracking technology has a lot more to do with the reason we don't hear as much about peak oil anymore now that the effects of the Great Recession on oil demand is a thing of the past. Doesn't help at all with the CO2 emissions obviously, but enough to stave off the particular flavor of societal collapse folks like James Kunstler were sure we were headed into back in 2008.
 

Ole King Hubbert came pretty close to hitting the peak right on when he guesstimated the peak for oil extraction from conventional means in the 1950s.  How long is the oil supposed to last with the new extraction techniques?  It is still a limited resource.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 20, 2019, 07:15:57 PM
I haven't seen any people on this board who are unconcerned about resources - that description looks like an attribution error.
I'm judging by actions rather than words.

You are judging, yes. And the standard you are using appears to be that anyone who doesn't agree with your exact solution set must be unconcerned.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that you care and are putting forth effort, even if our assumptions and thus our conclusions differ. Your replies appear highly unreciprocal in return.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on October 20, 2019, 07:45:59 PM
More New Yorker ...  speculative fiction RE climate change from Joyce Carol Oates:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/14/sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 21, 2019, 02:00:38 AM
I think the emergence and widespread adoption of new fracking technology has a lot more to do with the reason we don't hear as much about peak oil anymore now that the effects of the Great Recession on oil demand is a thing of the past. Doesn't help at all with the CO2 emissions obviously, but enough to stave off the particular flavor of societal collapse folks like James Kunstler were sure we were headed into back in 2008.
High prices causing recessions which then destroy demand is a really painful way to get to lower emissions.

Fracking, aside from its environmental effects, has the issue that there's a quick peak of production and a quicker dropoff (as opposed to the longer tail of conventional production). So there can be some uncomfortable moments there when production suddenly disappears. And of course, the US companies mostly haven't turned a profit and have massive debts - there's the potential for that to be another debt crisis for the West.

Kunstler's still talking doom! (https://kunstler.com) The US is about to collapse into civil war any day now! And his comment section is full of all sorts of nutty conspiracy theorists and trolls. From his most recent blog,

"Now, persons throughout all these agencies are waiting for the hammer to fall. If they are prosecuted, the process will entail yet another monumental excursion into the replaying of those digital records. It could go on for years. So, the final act in the collapse of the USA will be the government choking itself to death on replayed narratives from its own server farms. In the meantime, events are actually tending in a direction that will eventually deprive the nation of the means to continue most of its accustomed activities including credible elections, food distribution, a reliable electric grid, and perhaps even self-defense."

DOOM!!!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 23, 2019, 03:26:16 PM
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/10/03/analysis/data-based-dismantling-jason-kenneys-foreign-funding-conspiracy-theory

I found this on an election discussion site.  Interesting for Canadians to see where some of the rhetoric from Alberta is coming from, totally based on mis-information.  Some of the comments are also pretty interesting.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on October 28, 2019, 06:27:18 PM
Jared Diamond wrote a book called Collaps, which describes that advanced civilizations can collaps within a few decades. I think that will happen with most of the modernized world, as we are not taking climate changes seriously.

I like him.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 28, 2019, 07:30:28 PM
Hmmmmm - the collapse will take a few decades.  Sounds like it's pushing the long run.  So we've got maybe 30 years.

"In the long run we are all dead," John Maynard Keynes

Seriously - It sounds like a book worth reading.  Do we currently see the first effects?
 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 28, 2019, 08:00:23 PM
Yes.

Part of the cause of the Arab Spring was rising bread prices, which came about because of drops in local grain production, which came about because of climate change and aquifer depletion - and then the young rural males with nothing to do went to the cities and rioted. Thus ongoing civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen.

High oil prices were also a cause of the GFC in 2009.

And of course, part of the cause of the Second Congo War around 2000, killing 5 million people, was the mining of coltan and other resources - for our electronics. Nobody would be fighting a war for it if it were plentiful. And to this day slave child labour provides many of these resources.

So we have already seen regional and global effects of resource depletion and climate change, depressions and wars.

A "collapse" won't be overnight. It's just things gradually getting shittier. Transport and utilities getting less reliable. More waiting for an economic revival that doesn't come. More people marching or rioting. More crackdowns from government. A few more people dying from preventable diseases. Brownouts and alcoholism. And so on.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 29, 2019, 06:21:34 AM
In the aforementioned book, Jared Diamond describes how collapse of developed civilizations follows decades of declines until it reaches an unknown tipping point when the populace at large loses confidence in the established government, the mechanisms of power (e.g. efficient taxation, police/military, justice/penal system) stop functioning and then the civilization collapses in a very short time period.  This pattern has been repeated throughout history and across continents and cultures.

So slow decline, followed by an abrupt end.

It’s a good book - well researched and clearly written.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on October 29, 2019, 10:15:13 AM

Should we stop polluting, producing and reproducing....certainly.  Will it happen....certainly not.

I share your pessimism concerning population growth.

Every minute ~250 humans are born and ~105 die so global population increases ~208,800 per day.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 29, 2019, 10:42:03 AM

Should we stop polluting, producing and reproducing....certainly.  Will it happen....certainly not.

I share your pessimism concerning population growth.

Every minute ~250 humans are born and ~105 die so global population increases ~208,800 per day.

Global population growth is being driven by a handful of developing nations, mostly in African and Asia. About 40% of the countries are now below the replacement rate of ~2.1, and another 20% are very close.  Back in the 1960s this seemed inconceivable. 
The factors which are tightly correlated with lower pregnancies include literacy and education for women, access to healthcare and financial security (e.g. rising above subsistance).  These changes can happen in under a generation, and have for a number of countries large countries.

tl;dr - if we want to stop or slow population growth we need to increase education, health care and standards of living in the largest developing nations. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OurTown on October 29, 2019, 12:58:52 PM

Should we stop polluting, producing and reproducing....certainly.  Will it happen....certainly not.

I share your pessimism concerning population growth.

Every minute ~250 humans are born and ~105 die so global population increases ~208,800 per day.

Global population growth is being driven by a handful of developing nations, mostly in African and Asia. About 40% of the countries are now below the replacement rate of ~2.1, and another 20% are very close.  Back in the 1960s this seemed inconceivable. 
The factors which are tightly correlated with lower pregnancies include literacy and education for women, access to healthcare and financial security (e.g. rising above subsistance).  These changes can happen in under a generation, and have for a number of countries large countries.

tl;dr - if we want to stop or slow population growth we need to increase education, health care and standards of living in the largest developing nations.

According to this https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ we are going to peak at 11 billion at the turn of the next century.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 29, 2019, 01:56:34 PM
According to this https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/ we are going to peak at 11 billion at the turn of the next century.

Interesting.  So that's a 43% increase over the next 80 years, following two centuries where global population went from ~600 million to ~1.8B (19th century) and then from 1.8B to 6B (20th).

population growth has been falling for the last quarter century.  Population decline has begun in many (mostly developed) parts of the world (ignoring immigration). 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on October 29, 2019, 06:09:00 PM
There was a Scandinavian professor, Hans Rosling, who did a nice talk on population growth rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 29, 2019, 06:43:01 PM
There was a Scandinavian professor, Hans Rosling, who did a nice talk on population growth rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg)

I like his analog diagrams :-)
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: pecunia on October 29, 2019, 07:59:03 PM
So, Is Thomas Malthus finally right?  Will the population bomb explode or will technology once again pull a rabbit out of a hat?  Lots of smart people out there.  Necessity is the mother of invention.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on October 30, 2019, 06:11:31 AM
So, Is Thomas Malthus finally right?  Will the population bomb explode or will technology once again pull a rabbit out of a hat?  Lots of smart people out there.  Necessity is the mother of invention.

According to the history of a lot of major inventions, it really isn't. Invention is usually the mother of necessity.

Shit gets invented because crazy people like to invent crazy things, and then a use is found for them. Necessity tends to be the mother of refinement, not of invention itself.

Humans actually have a TERRIBLE history of inventing what we need. We're, however, tremendously good at utilizing and refining what comes along.

So our hopes are really pinned on the wild machinations of lunatics.

Neat, huh?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2019, 07:05:35 AM
So, Is Thomas Malthus finally right?  Will the population bomb explode or will technology once again pull a rabbit out of a hat?  Lots of smart people out there.  Necessity is the mother of invention.

Well, if you are talking about his calculations of population growth made over 200 years ago, there has already been serious deviation from his predictions. The most congruent estimates have global population plateauing somewhere between 9-11 billion in the next 30-50 years, and afterward possibly declining slowly. Will that actually come to pass?  We shall see.  Pandemic(s), global war or societal changes in how we view child-rearing could all shift things  dramatically in decadal timescales.

Regardless, it's almost certain that the global population in 2040 will be higher than it is now, and we are already massively impacting our climate and consuming a mind-bogglingly large amount of resources.  We will have to do far better with consumption and resource management/generation in the decade to come to offset even more people.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: TrudgingAlong on October 30, 2019, 09:27:32 AM
Malthus seems to have had very simplistic and negative views on human nature. He also comes at it from an extremely male-dominate point of view. In his day, women were basically chattel. If they were ever actually consulted, I’m sure many would have been very happy to have less children and pregnancies. Men looked at it simply as a numbers game. I suspect he might not have been as off with his ideas if he’d considered women’s autonomy or the desire to have the means to limit births (which really was impossible then without abstinence).

As a woman, the population drop off in developed nations seems very expected. Giving women power to not only prevent births but make it morally okay to do so (yes, I support legal abortion, but outside of that, many deeply religious cultures think limiting family size in any way is a sin - that’s some powerful messaging to even the poorest of families) is pretty huge.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: BicycleB on October 30, 2019, 09:41:23 AM
...Necessity is the mother of invention.

According to the history of a lot of major inventions, it really isn't. Invention is usually the mother of necessity.

Shit gets invented because crazy people like to invent crazy things, and then a use is found for them. Necessity tends to be the mother of refinement, not of invention itself.

Humans actually have a TERRIBLE history of inventing what we need. We're, however, tremendously good at utilizing and refining what comes along.

So our hopes are really pinned on the wild machinations of lunatics.

Neat, huh?

Very interesting proposition! @Malkynn, where does one read more about this?
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on October 30, 2019, 02:10:36 PM
...Necessity is the mother of invention.

According to the history of a lot of major inventions, it really isn't. Invention is usually the mother of necessity.

Shit gets invented because crazy people like to invent crazy things, and then a use is found for them. Necessity tends to be the mother of refinement, not of invention itself.

Humans actually have a TERRIBLE history of inventing what we need. We're, however, tremendously good at utilizing and refining what comes along.

So our hopes are really pinned on the wild machinations of lunatics.

Neat, huh?

Very interesting proposition! @Malkynn, where does one read more about this?

Hmm...crap, I don't know, I read a lot of history and anthropology. My brain is a big ol' mess of text books. Without the narrative element of normal books, it's hard to ever remember where I've read anything.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 30, 2019, 04:47:50 PM
Malthus seems to have had very simplistic and negative views on human nature. He also comes at it from an extremely male-dominate point of view. In his day, women were basically chattel.
Exactly. He had not had an example of a country where women achieved widespread literacy and improved economic power and thus had less children. Even as patriarchal a country as Iran, the births per woman has dropped to 1.66. This means that around one-third of Iranian families have decided to do without a male child - that's quite something in a culture where historically men are everything. And Saudi Arabia is at 2.53 - down from more than 7 in 1980.

People are actually fairly good at matching their birth rates to available resources. The problem is that the resources available when your child is born may not be as available 25 years later. A couple of researchers studying the genocide in Rwanda noted that inheritance laws meant that a family's land was split among their sons, leading to trying to farm on smaller and smaller plots of land (as little as under an acre), and that many of the people murdered had plots of land adjoining their killers, or the leader of the local killing group. Zimbabwe and South Africa have had their land seizures, and so did Rwanda, they just did it in a much more sudden and murderous fashion.

Given time and foreknowledge, people can and do plan births and other uses of resources fairly well - not to avoid long-term effects like climate change, but well enough to avoid immediate destruction. Bear in mind that the countries with such horrible suffering are not democratic. Famines, for example, do not happen in more-or-less democratic countries, however impoverished they may be.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: marty998 on November 11, 2019, 01:17:13 PM
Quote
"The climate apocalypse is coming ... "

Rome burns while Nero fiddles.

My state of NSW is on fire today. Conditions are so bad, the Rural Fire Service had to invent a new category of fire danger. The scale used to go Low, High, Very High, Severe, Extreme.

It now starts at High, then goes through Very High, Severe, Extreme, and today they've slapped a Catastrophic sticker on the entire Sydney Metropolitan area, including the Central Coast and the Illawarra.

The dams are running dry in Sydney on account of subsistence from coal mines underneath them (no joke, there's a massive dollop of irony if ever there was one). Water is scarce and the landscape barren. Politicians will give their thoughts and prayers and not much else, doing their best to tell everyone who mentions the CC words to stop playing politics.

Stay safe out there. It's going to be a long day.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on November 11, 2019, 02:47:28 PM
Thinking of the NSW MMM'ers - I have a few friends in the Illawarra and I'm supposed to go to a wedding on Saturday, hopefully there's still something to celebrate.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on November 11, 2019, 05:43:32 PM
I have friends and family in NSW that I am concerned about.  NOW is the perfect time to talk about climate change.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: LonerMatt on November 11, 2019, 07:25:01 PM
McCormac's rhetoric about inner city lefies is total tosh and harmful juxtaposition. Really ugly stuff.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on November 11, 2019, 07:42:41 PM
I can't be the only person concerned about pandemics, can I?

Maybe it's having a DH who used to specifically work on pandemics that biases my thinking, but every time I read about dormant viruses coming from the melting ice caps...well...it's not comforting.

Even if these viruses only affect other mammals, it's not a minor deal waking up dormant pathologies. The impacts to the entire global ecosystem can be profound.

Pandemics, even just among animals, have a lot of sweeping impact.

Let's see what oozes out of the ice.
Don't trust the husky, lol
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on November 11, 2019, 07:53:17 PM
Not quite the same thing as viruses coming out of the melting ice, but African Swine Flu is now projected to be responsible for the deaths of more than 1/4th of all the pigs on earth.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: middo on November 11, 2019, 07:56:55 PM
I can't be the only person concerned about pandemics, can I?

Maybe it's having a DH who used to specifically work on pandemics that biases my thinking, but every time I read about dormant viruses coming from the melting ice caps...well...it's not comforting.

Even if these viruses only affect other mammals, it's not a minor deal waking up dormant pathologies. The impacts to the entire global ecosystem can be profound.

Pandemics, even just among animals, have a lot of sweeping impact.

Let's see what oozes out of the ice.
Don't trust the husky, lol

My daughter has a long standing interest in diseases in Australia, which only recently became an academic research project for her.  Those "tropical" diseases such as dengue that were not in Australia are now present and will spread.  The vectors that spread these diseases are also changing their ranges.  New viruses are being discovered every year, some of which will become more dangerous as the climate changes quickly.  Global warming is a lot more than just a few hotter days.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on November 11, 2019, 08:10:58 PM
Not quite the same thing as viruses coming out of the melting ice, but African Swine Flu is now projected to be responsible for the deaths of more than 1/4th of all the pigs on earth.

Fuckin' pandemics.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on November 11, 2019, 08:13:47 PM
I can't be the only person concerned about pandemics, can I?

Maybe it's having a DH who used to specifically work on pandemics that biases my thinking, but every time I read about dormant viruses coming from the melting ice caps...well...it's not comforting.

Even if these viruses only affect other mammals, it's not a minor deal waking up dormant pathologies. The impacts to the entire global ecosystem can be profound.

Pandemics, even just among animals, have a lot of sweeping impact.

Let's see what oozes out of the ice.
Don't trust the husky, lol

My daughter has a long standing interest in diseases in Australia, which only recently became an academic research project for her.  Those "tropical" diseases such as dengue that were not in Australia are now present and will spread.  The vectors that spread these diseases are also changing their ranges.  New viruses are being discovered every year, some of which will become more dangerous as the climate changes quickly.  Global warming is a lot more than just a few hotter days.

It's also a lot more than disruption of food and water supply.

I'm always amused by the notion that we can predict how it will affect us. There are a few predictable outcomes, but the unpredictable ones are far more interesting.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on November 11, 2019, 08:18:01 PM
I can't be the only person concerned about pandemics, can I?

Maybe it's having a DH who used to specifically work on pandemics that biases my thinking, but every time I read about dormant viruses coming from the melting ice caps...well...it's not comforting.

Even if these viruses only affect other mammals, it's not a minor deal waking up dormant pathologies. The impacts to the entire global ecosystem can be profound.

Pandemics, even just among animals, have a lot of sweeping impact.

Let's see what oozes out of the ice.
Don't trust the husky, lol

The Joyce Carol Oates short story I linked to up thread speculated about this sort of thing.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on November 11, 2019, 08:27:25 PM
I can't be the only person concerned about pandemics, can I?

Maybe it's having a DH who used to specifically work on pandemics that biases my thinking, but every time I read about dormant viruses coming from the melting ice caps...well...it's not comforting.

Even if these viruses only affect other mammals, it's not a minor deal waking up dormant pathologies. The impacts to the entire global ecosystem can be profound.

Pandemics, even just among animals, have a lot of sweeping impact.

Let's see what oozes out of the ice.
Don't trust the husky, lol

The Joyce Carol Oates short story I linked to up thread speculated about this sort of thing.

Sorry, didn't read it. Not a fan of fiction.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 12, 2019, 09:20:29 AM
What struck me years ago is how easily the wind can spread things.  Dust storms in the Sahara can end up dropping dust on Florida south to Central America.  And whatever is in that dust gets transported too.

Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 12, 2019, 12:23:31 PM
While we are contemplating the spread of diseases . . .

You know how water vapour wants something to condense out on to, to create raindrops or snowflakes?  A lot of those condensation nuclei are bacteria.  A lot of those bacteria are plant pathogens.  How handy, it rains, the raindrop lands on a leaf, if the bacterium is lucky it is the right kind of lea and it is home.  I haven't seen anything about this and fungi but don't see why a fungal spore can't also be a condensation nucleus.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on November 12, 2019, 03:27:55 PM
Yes if you broaden the definition to include plant pathogens, lots more diseases to worry about. Ug99 (a kind of stem rust) in wheat is a big one. Near 100% yield losses, almost no currently grown cultivars have resistance. Slowly spreading across Africa, but if it ever gets into the big wheat producing regions of the US, Australia, or eastern Europe....
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on November 12, 2019, 06:01:29 PM
Maizeman are you a wheat scientist?    My FIL was a wheat scientist!
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on November 12, 2019, 06:04:19 PM
Maizeman are you a wheat scientist?    My FIL was a wheat scientist!

I'm not one myself, but I do work with some people who are. Wheat seems to be a pretty small world.
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Gremlin on November 12, 2019, 08:27:51 PM
Maizeman are you a wheat scientist?    My FIL was a wheat scientist!

I'm not one myself, but I do work with some people who are. Wheat seems to be a pretty small world.
Are you a maize man?  Sorry, I'll show myself out...
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 05:40:23 AM
Maizeman are you a wheat scientist?    My FIL was a wheat scientist!

I'm not one myself, but I do work with some people who are. Wheat seems to be a pretty small world.
Are you a maize man?  Sorry, I'll show myself out...

::snort::
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: scottish on November 13, 2019, 03:33:01 PM
Maizeman are you a wheat scientist?    My FIL was a wheat scientist!

I'm not one myself, but I do work with some people who are. Wheat seems to be a pretty small world.
Are you a maize man?  Sorry, I'll show myself out...

::snort::

Yeah, yeah, I know maize == corn not wheat
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: maizeman on November 13, 2019, 07:00:52 PM
maize/corn is one of those frustrating cases where english != english depending on where in the world you live.

Still better than "millet", I swear millet is just english for "any grain for which we do not have a name in english"
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 07:29:20 PM
maize/corn is one of those frustrating cases where english != english depending on where in the world you live.

Still better than "millet", I swear millet is just english for "any grain for which we do not have a name in english"

You just confirmed what I suspected was on my dinner plate. 
Title: Re: "The climate apocalypse is coming ... "
Post by: Malkynn on November 14, 2019, 06:31:39 AM
Still better than "millet", I swear millet is just english for "any grain for which we do not have a name in english"

Absolutely, millet is more of a descriptor than any actual plant family, kind of like "vegetable".