Is it time to finally move on from "Stopping Climate Change" and instead work on mitigating it?

[Harry Bosch]

is most definitely part of the problem.

I'd put China as 1% of the problem. So, they are a part.
I'd put the 1.5B most affluent westerners as 95%.

Pretending that China needs to mend their ways is bullshit, IMNSHO.
Tom

ETA ~Here's a little anecdote. Somewhere in my neighborhood there's a guy who drives a truck is see occasionally. I've never seen it with more than one occupant or a load visible. It's a V-8, 4 door, dually, longbed pickup. Across the tailgate is a three foot wide bumper sticker.
"I am very proud of my carbon footprint"

As long as people like that continue to dominate the planet, I find it reprehensible to expect Chinese people to do without jobs or electric lights and whatever else is being powered by their generating plants. ~

Well, this is part of the reason why fighting the climate change is so difficult, and I think really impossible. People either believe that it is a myth or they think that someone else should fix it. The only way to really stop the climate change is for everyone to come together, put the past in the rear mirror, and fix it. But we all know that this can't and won't happen. So yea, it's time to find ways to mitigate climate change. We can't stop it from happening. It's not in our nature.

 

[TomC]

So yea, it's time to find ways to mitigate climate change. We can't stop it from happening. It's not in our nature.

I don't think we can find ways to mitigate it either. It's not in our nature. Humans are self-serving and short sighted. I honestly believe that humans will start nuclear war before they'll accept and deal with the problems caused by modern technology. Because war is in our nature.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

is most definitely part of the problem.

I'd put China as 1% of the problem. So, they are a part.
I'd put the 1.5B most affluent westerners as 95%.

Indeed, China pollutes a ton because we outsourced our pollution there.

 

[bilby]

The only way to really stop the climate change is for everyone to come together,

See, that's not true; It's an article of faith from the green neo-luddite movement, which holds that each individual has both the responsibility and the power to make a difference. But that's not true and never has been.

Sure, if everyone came together to implement appropriate changes in lifestyle, that would fix the problem; But that's neither plausible nor (thankfully) necessary.

The problem could be solved by the actions of a very small number of politicians and energy companies. If all the electricity were generated by nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants, and other zero carbon technologies; And hydrocarbon fuels for vehicles were made using that electricity, and/or from biological sources, then it would make zero difference how Joe Lunchpail chose to live - he could drive his huge, inefficient truck, leave his air conditioner running full blast 24/7 and simultaneously use a heater when his house got too cold, buy only food produced on the opposite side of the planet, and generally be as wasteful as he likes, and doing so would multiply his carbon footprint by ten, or a hundred, or a thousand without polluting the atmosphere one iota - because ten, a hundred or even a thousand times zero is still zero.

If eight billion people all work together towards a single goal, then each one need only do a few small things, in order to make a huge impact. BUT, if seven point nine billion people work towards a single goal, by doing a few small things, then the other 100 million people can completely fuck them up by doing a few big things towards an opposite goal.

And that cuts both ways. A handful of uncaring but wealthy and/or powerful people can completely fuck up the atmosphere, and there's nothing the powerless majority can do to stop them. But equally, a handful of caring and wealthy and/or powerful people can make it impossible for the uncaring behaviour of the powerless majority to fuck things up, no matter how hard they try.

When you can get hydrocarbon fuel and/or electricity cheaply and conveniently only from non-fossil sources, being lazy automatically means having a zero carbon footprint.

That's not to say that an inefficient and wasteful lifestyle isn't going to harm our environment in other ways; Nor that such behaviour shouldn't be discouraged. But you can't add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning carbon neutral fuels, even if you're a dickhead who's deliberately trying to make things worse.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The only way to really stop the climate change is for everyone to come together,

See, that's not true; It's an article of faith from the green neo-luddite movement, which holds that each individual has both the responsibility and the power to make a difference. But that's not true and never has been.

Sure, if everyone came together to implement appropriate changes in lifestyle, that would fix the problem; But that's neither plausible nor (thankfully) necessary.

The problem could be solved by the actions of a very small number of politicians and energy companies. If all the electricity were generated by nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants, and other zero carbon technologies; And hydrocarbon fuels for vehicles were made using that electricity, and/or from biological sources, then it would make zero difference how Joe Lunchpail chose to live - he could drive his huge, inefficient truck, leave his air conditioner running full blast 24/7 and simultaneously use a heater when his house got too cold, buy only food produced on the opposite side of the planet, and generally be as wasteful as he likes, and doing so would multiply his carbon footprint by ten, or a hundred, or a thousand without polluting the atmosphere one iota - because ten, a hundred or even a thousand times zero is still zero.

If eight billion people all work together towards a single goal, then each one need only do a few small things, in order to make a huge impact. BUT, if seven point nine billion people work towards a single goal, by doing a few small things, then the other 100 million people can completely fuck them up by doing a few big things towards an opposite goal.

And that cuts both ways. A handful of uncaring but wealthy and/or powerful people can completely fuck up the atmosphere, and there's nothing the powerless majority can do to stop them. But equally, a handful of caring and wealthy and/or powerful people can make it impossible for the uncaring behaviour of the powerless majority to fuck things up, no matter how hard they try.

When you can get hydrocarbon fuel and/or electricity cheaply and conveniently only from non-fossil sources, being lazy automatically means having a zero carbon footprint.

That's not to say that an inefficient and wasteful lifestyle isn't going to harm our environment in other ways; Nor that such behaviour shouldn't be discouraged. But you can't add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning carbon neutral fuels, even if you're a dickhead who's deliberately trying to make things worse.

Amigo!! In your first paragraph above your response to me was it's "not true, ... that it's an article of faith from the green neo-luddite movement"... Then in the fourth paragraph, you say that we only need 8 billion; don't need the final 100 million. Would I no longer be a ludditee if I had said that we'll need 95% of the world's population to agree to reduce our emissions? Seems like a pretty small difference there!

Regardless. If the US and Europe adopted 100% nuclear and other green energy sources tomorrow (that would be quite a feat, very unlikely); and just China continued it's coal plants (they are building 5 more now); we'll not stop the climate change.

 

[bilby]

Then in the fourth paragraph, you say that we only need 8 billion; don't need the final 100 million.

No, I say the exact opposite of that.

 

[bilby]

Would I no longer be a luddite

I also never suggested that you were a luddite; only that you were repeating their propaganda, which given its massive popularity and widespread acceptance, is unsurprising; It's been repeated so long and loud that people frequently treat it as axiomatic.

To the point where you assumed I must be making much the same argument in my rebuttal of it, leading to your unfounded inference that I was merely picking nits and suggesting that 95% of people would suffice to change the world.

My point is (and remains) that the 100 million can fix the problem, or prevent it from being fixed, and there's nothing the 7.9 billion can do about it either way, unless they can get those 100 billion to play ball.

The action you can take as an individual to reduce climate change has almost zero to do with your own carbon footprint, and almost everything to do with your political influence.

If you drive a Prius and protest against nuclear power plants, you're more responsible for climate change than someone who drives a massive V8 truck but who doesn't care whether or not nuclear power plants are built.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Carbon taxes are the answer according to Elon Musk and he is correct (as usual). Make everyone pay the real cost of fuel (whatever that fuel is), the cost of production PLUS the cost of damage to the environment. Climate change has been figured out and resolved for you Jimmy!

That doesn't solve the increase in temperature problem, nor the unstoppable acceleration. That's why Elon Musk is working on spaceships for the wealthy elite to eventually escape the hell hole they've created. So basically, can't stop it, so mitigate it. But then can't mitigate it, so run away. But get paid doing it. That guy's a genius!

There’s nowhere that Elon Musk can take the ultra-elite where life would be easier for them than here on Earth. At least not for a few generations. Despite global climate change the elite will manage to find ways to make themselves comfortable for quite some time.

This is why I find manned space flight immoral. And extraplanetary communities profoundly immoral.

If we've got the technology and resources to keep one person alive on a space station, we can keep a thousand people alive on earth. If we can keep one person alive on the moon, we could keep a million people alive on earth. If we could keep one person alive on Mars, probably closer to a hundred million earth humans.

The people that are dying are doing so because of bad governments, not through an inability to provide for them. Thus it is not an either/or situation.

And the reality is that pretty much all new tech starts out being a rich man's toy and eventually trickles down to the masses. Take away the rich man's toy and it won't trickle down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't understand why this is an "instead". Why would addressing the consequences of climate change preclude trying to reduce carbon emissions?

Also, why do westerners keep bringing up China, as though they're the problem?

Last I knew, the per capita Chinese carbon footprint was about a quarter of the American. And we westerners developed our economies without regard for climate change.

Why should Chinese people carry the burden for a problem we created and continue to create daily?
Tom

Because if China/India don't control carbon it doesn't matter what we do. Everyone needs to pitch in or we fry.

And note that China appears to be undoing the efforts to protect the ozone layer. They seem to be emitting as much in the way of ozone-destroying chemicals as there used to be. (The law was written to permit recovery/reuse of said chemicals--just label your new stuff as extracted from old equipment and sell it.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I actually have more hope in China than America in leading the way in the climate fight. The US is too divided. Half the country thinks that climate change is a hoax. It could be worse in China. I don't know. But they are a dictatorship essentially. They can make permanent changes on a dime. Not the US

China is fixated on maintaining their 7% growth rate despite the fact that such growth rates can only be sustained in the developing world. This is because their whole economy is based on that and they're going to be in a world of pain when the correction comes. The government fears revolution when that happens.

Avoiding such a revolution is a far more pressing issue than keeping the world from frying as the latter won't happen in the lifetime of those in power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

is most definitely part of the problem.

I'd put China as 1% of the problem. So, they are a part.
I'd put the 1.5B most affluent westerners as 95%.

Indeed, China pollutes a ton because we outsourced our pollution there.

Yup, another reason it needs to be worldwide.

If any country gets serious about it they'll just drive the high-carbon industries to the places that don't exert such controls. Only consumption that can't be outsourced actually gets addressed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem could be solved by the actions of a very small number of politicians and energy companies. If all the electricity were generated by nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants, and other zero carbon technologies; And hydrocarbon fuels for vehicles were made using that electricity, and/or from biological sources, then it would make zero difference how Joe Lunchpail chose to live - he could drive his huge, inefficient truck, leave his air conditioner running full blast 24/7 and simultaneously use a heater when his house got too cold, buy only food produced on the opposite side of the planet, and generally be as wasteful as he likes, and doing so would multiply his carbon footprint by ten, or a hundred, or a thousand without polluting the atmosphere one iota - because ten, a hundred or even a thousand times zero is still zero.

Disagree.

Politicians have repeatedly shown they'll side with panic against nuclear. The whole regulatory system is incredibly hostile towards nuclear.

Until the politicians show they can be trusted not to blow with the wind about reactors no electric utility is going to build nuclear plants. It's going to take a lot to overcome "nope, no operating permit for you, throw away your reactor--and shareholders eat the bill."

And, no, I do not want the government operating reactors. Systems where both the operation and regulation come from the same source have a very bad track record.

 

[bilby]

And, no, I do not want the government operating reactors. Systems where both the operation and regulation come from the same source have a very bad track record.

Systems where they don't also have a poor track record. People are shit at organising things without corruption sneaking in, and separation of powers is typically only a hypothetical situation - do you really imagine that big corporations don't own the government regulators under your current system?

Anyway, your paranoia about nationalised infrastructure isn't an actual argument against it. Some things really do need to be done for the public good, and possibly even at a financial loss, in order for a society to thrive. And there are plenty of places where it works very well indeed.

I very much want the government operating grid scale electricity generation. And the grids that that generation supplies, too.

If it can be done both sustainably and profitably, then that's a win for the taxpayers. If it can't be profitable, then as it supports all other activity, it's important for it to be done anyway, even if that means taxpayers have to pay for it. They benefit from it too, and get a vote about who runs it and how, so why shouldn't they?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

---

Until the politicians show they can be trusted not to blow with the wind about reactors no electric utility is going to build nuclear plants. It's going to take a lot to overcome "nope, no operating permit for you, throw away your reactor--and shareholders eat the bill."

Hence the OP. We aren't going to reduce emissions enough and the climate will continue to warm. Best case scenario is we just have to deal with more torrential rain related flooding and hotter temperatures in the summer and a more chaotic polar vortex in the winter.

And, no, I do not want the government operating reactors. Systems where both the operation and regulation come from the same source have a very bad track record.

Water, sewer, transportation, power, dams?

 

[bilby]

Water, sewer, transportation, power, dams?

... bridges, waste disposal, healthcare, disaster recovery and relief...

 

[laughing dog]

Mitigation and adaptation are rational goals. It is too late to stop global warming. At best, humans can stop adding to the increase in global warming, but that is too much of a haul for the world at this time.

 

[Politesse]

Mitigation and adaptation are rational goals. It is too late to stop global warming. At best, humans can stop adding to the increase in global warming, but that is too much of a haul for the world at this time.

This seems like an incredibly argument statement to me. Like saying, "I can't stop eating fat altogether, so why try to reduce my weight at all?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mitigation and adaptation are rational goals. It is too late to stop global warming. At best, humans can stop adding to the increase in global warming, but that is too much of a haul for the world at this time.

This seems like an incredibly argument statement to me. Like saying, "I can't stop eating fat altogether, so why try to reduce my weight at all?"

That isn't what is being said. We need to reduce emissions, the trouble is, we aren't going to at a clip fast enough to make a difference, so we need to at least be proactive on the consequences.

 

[Politesse]

Mitigation and adaptation are rational goals. It is too late to stop global warming. At best, humans can stop adding to the increase in global warming, but that is too much of a haul for the world at this time.

This seems like an incredibly argument statement to me. Like saying, "I can't stop eating fat altogether, so why try to reduce my weight at all?"

That isn't what is being said. We need to reduce emissions, the trouble is, we aren't going to at a clip fast enough to make a difference, so we need to at least be proactive on the consequences.

Of course we do (and again, I've never heard any climate scientist say that we should not be planning for what's coming). But, reducing carbon footprint is part of being proactive about the consequences. Climate change isn't an "on or off" switch, it's a question of scale, and a question of pace, whose values on both fronts vary by region and change constantly. Humanity has spent most of its existence in the belly of a warming trend, and no one who knew what they were talking about ever promised we could stop it altogether -- the actual crisis comes from the rapidity and degree of anthropogenic climate change, and every measure we take to reduce our contribution to the acceleration of climate change will reduce the overall severity of the next many centuries of more immediate crises. Building higher and higher sea walls is an absolute necessity, but it will do nothing to stem the pace at which the sea is rising. People who only want to build sea walls and never question the diesel plant are playing a losing game, because the cost of their ever more expansive and increasingly temporary mitigations is destined to rise beyond their politicians' willingness to invest in them, eventually.

There's also the problem that if building less factories or making more efficient cars is a politically untenable solution to the climate crisis, so too are more serious (but practical and necessary) mitigations like allowing a much greater volume of immigration into Northern regions from tropical nations, moving most cities higher or inland, abandoning many of our prime agricultural zones and rezoning some currently uncultivated and less productive areas for agriculture to compensate, making access to clean water and shelter a basic human right enforced by law, more merciless exploitation of Northern resources and watersheds, strategic but vicious triage concerning about which coral reefs or jungles or plant and animal species are saveable, and so forth. Many of the problems caused by climate change are themselves no less intractable. Reducing reliance on dirty power or ill-advised agricultural policies etc actually helps with most of these issues anyway, whether it reduced carbon footprints or not. Solar production can physically move with you in a way that coal cannot. Food crops will always be a more sustainable investment than cash crops. Reducing carbon footprint is a good thing but not the only reason to do most of the stuff that reduces carbon footprint. We would be rapidly running out of financial viable oil extraction zones whether the planet was warming or cooling, the fact that oil production also accelerates msot other crises we face is just one of many reasons to be concerned about the petroleum question. To quote the old social media meme, what if climate change is a lie and it turns out we made the world a more livable place for no reason?

(Notice how I mentioned coal and diesel rather than nuclear, to spare Bilby the time expense of obligatory interjection - I'm a good friend)

 

[bilby]

Building higher and higher sea walls is an absolute necessity

There comes a point when it is basically futile, and it's easier to just move the infrastructure that the sea wall is protecting - even if that infrastructure is an entire city.

The point being that this is hugely difficult and expensive; So it must be done in conjunction with reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, or it will just need to be repeated over and over again. And of course, while we can move a city, we can't move a coral reef, and we can't restart a thermohaline circulation, and we can't undo a lot of the other things that will degrade our quality of life as temperatures and sea levels increase, and as oceanic pH falls.

No matter what other steps we take, we will still need to stop emitting carbon dioxide from fossil fuels into our atmosphere.

There's no point in moving to a cabin on a higher deck of the ship, while we still tolerate letting the first class passengers drill holes in the bottom.