IPCC thinks it will need 2.5% of global GDP for 20 years to fix.
Act now? It still doesn't seem like any of the world's electable politicians even believe the problem yet. Just in greenwash and talking about GDP growth.
The next generation is fucked.
Edit: That's very disappointing to see. Submission goes from top 5 on front page to nowhere, yet isn't flagged.
It isn't Germany, the RWE corporation wants this because in the near future they will loose the ability to mine coal in that area, so they'll happily pay off politicians and raze the forest to get at whatever coal is down there until the time's up.
The easy and most efficient solution to all these problems it to outlaw oil and coal now. It would cause all kinds of auxiliary damage but it would likely be cheaper than continuing down the current path.
In light of this morning's IPCC report I think you are right with the second point. An outright ban may soon cause less auxiliary damage than trying to encourage economies (i.e. ignoring the issue)
> There’s a narrative I find kind of troubling, but that unfortunately seems to be growing more common in science. The core idea is that the mere existence of perverse incentives is a valid and sufficient reason to knowingly behave in an antisocial way, just as long as one first acknowledges the existence of those perverse incentives.
http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2018/10/02/no-its-not-the-inc...
As a cyclist who's slowly switching to a mostly vegetarian diet, partly to reduce my carbon emissions, I find this quote to apply equally well to people who believe that climate change is a problem but seem to want to wait for the government to act before they do much.
Yes, maybe my efforts are "wasted" in some respect, but I don't think I'm missing much anything valuable anyway by cycling for example, so that eliminates the downside in my view.
A complete solution might be impossible, and we might have to make the least bad decision out of many.
You can’t effect the amount of carbon released by adopting a low carbon lifestyle when the price of fossil fuels is above the cost of production. All reducing demand at the margin does is lower the marginal price causing an increase in consumption elsewhere in the economy.
According to this a "typical" omnivore cyclist produces about 3 times less carbon than a "typical" driver. Vegan and vegetarian are about 4 times less. You can play around with the numbers in the calculator. I think this guy's probably biased towards veganism, but this is what I've seen.
I haven't seen a comparison with motorcycles or electric vehicles, or a comparison that took into account the embodied energy of the vehicles.
Edit: This calculator also assumes equal trip distances between modes of transportation, which is not realistic in my experience. Cyclists tend to have shorter trips. So that's another factor to consider.
> You can’t effect the amount of carbon released by adopting a low carbon lifestyle when the price of fossil fuels is above the cost of production. All reducing demand at the margin does is lower the marginal price causing an increase in consumption elsewhere in the economy.
If that's true, then I guess the goal is to slowly reduce the price. Perhaps cycling is ineffective in terms of carbon emissions. This is okay for me as I find either the cost or physical fitness benefits convincing in isolation.
the human brain uses 20 watts and has more computational power than the best supercomputer, so you should be careful.
how far does a car go with 1 yogurt?
I don’t see any kind of reform happening in the US until negative consequences are felt by a significant chunk of the population.
If you don't like this comment isn't it better to respond with your reasoning?
The same is true for alternative energies.
Meanwhile you'll agree that the consumer is indeed the most important part of any economic activity, and that they often have the most choice, as most corporate managers answer to shareholders who in turn answer to short-term profits.
If you switch to become veggie and start biking, and persuade >1 others to do the same, we should see exponential growth and you will have played your part in a substantial change for society.
I don't think it needs government intervention. The reasons to do it are compelling enough on their own with a little research. Look into it and consider making the change.
Electric powered by uranium and renewables solves more and is also immediately feasible though expensive to build infrastructure for battery handling.
Second thing would be to disperse industry and farming more evenly so that we do not have to transport food long distances. Remove energy intensive packaging (cans and bottles - use dispensers or foil), replace lighting with most efficient available. Switch manufacturing to as much on demand as possible.
I do think a revenue-neutral carbon tax as described in [0] could be politically viable in the not-so-distant future. But maybe I'm being too optimistic on that - coal miners seem to be awfully overrepresented in the current political environment.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/econ...
In other words, start preparing for the outcome of this. We, as a species, cannot seem to be able to stop what we are doing.
What do you think we can do about those antecedents we're not doing right now? (not argumentative, maybe I'm missing something)
We will have to deal with the source of the problem sooner or later; given enough trapped heat most of the planet will turn into deserts.
Politicians are completely incapable to make a balanced yearly budget, so what do we expect there exactly?
The balanced budget trope is abused by right wing politicians who want to (literally?) starve the welfare state while subsidizing business and defense. These are the same politicians who deny climate change in order to protect business, and the same politicians whose denial of climate change will destroy poorer, browner countries, and the same politicians who will deny aid and asylum to refugees from those destroyed countries. Don't fall for any of their horseshit, they're basically just corrupt, and incidentally monstrously evil.
I would love to cycle more, but I fear for my life riding on roads with traffic. I have seen far too many killed cyclist with my own eyes - in fact when I think about the only dead people I have seen are cyclists and motorcyclists.
It absolutely needs government intervention. For decades scientists have been warning about climate change and diets have not changed. If you look at any region with meaningful impact you'll see it's 100% due to regulation, whether that's penalties for bad garbage practices, penalties for water or electricity waste, etc. There is simply no way we crowdsource this, and my evidence is that we've had almost 40 years to do it and haven't even come close.
A fully manned car (5 persons) or a loaded truck wins by a good margin even over a tandem or cargo bike. A bus or truck even more so.
The main difference is in initial material costs, refining metals is expensive. The problem remains how to cleanly burn and source bioethanol.
wow, didn't expect actual coaster approximation
I actually disagree. I think it's difficult to be a healthy vegetarian (let alone a vegan) if you're in rural or poorer areas, as the majority of the US and indeed the world are. Most people aren't choosing their diets, they're eating what they can, or succumbing to billions of dollars of advertising carefully crafted to hypnotize them into brand loyalty to corporations dependent on factory farming. It's a fundamental flaw in market-based thinking: consumers often don't have serious choices or the information or resources to make good ones.
It's also a convenient escape hatch for irresponsible corporations and corrupt governments. "Well we agree there's a problem, but we can't fix it without unethical market regulations".
Consumers do not have enough pressure and tend to go for cheaper option rather than cleaner. And for avoiding imagined concentrated fears rather than diffuse long term loss. Which is why we're in the current predicament.
It's not much, and it's comfortably within what most people are eating already.
This means about one extra meal to match which would actually cut into waste if it is done smart. Or perhaps you do not even have to adjust anything. (obesity is a thing)