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

[Politesse]

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.

Exactly. There's no consequence of climate change you can name that would not be at least somewhat more manageable if we succeeded in reducing the anthropogenic influences on global warming, and it matters if we do this by degree even if halting the phenomenon altogether is not possible (as indeed it is not). Slowing it will still net considerable human dividends.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed, but while we must aim to slowing down the change, it isn't going to happen (hence we need a larger mountain of pragmatism here). We had 1 million Americans die from Covid-19... a year or two ago... and people still refuse to deny it ever really happened.

 

[Thomas II]

Follow this...
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3266/slowdown-of-the-motion-of-the-ocean/

 

[barbos]

So, Golfstream stops in 2025. I think here in Russia we need to prepare for hordes of europeans storming our borders.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, Golfstream stops in 2025. I think here in Russia we need to prepare for hordes of europeans storming our borders.

What actions are the Russian government taking to ensure habitability after the effects of climate change become more detrimental? What are their adaptation strategies?

 

[Elixir]

What are their adaptation strategies?

Apparently, it’s to send hordes of internet propagandists to demoralize the West so they let Pootler steal all Ukraine’s grain and oil. Seems like a waste of time, since all he really needs, is for Trump to be re-elected.

 

[barbos]

What actions are the Russian government taking to ensure habitability after the effects of climate change become more detrimental? What are their adaptation strategies?

Nothing, I think. My place is safe, cause it's exactly the center of the Eurasia.
I mean I doubt temperature will move drastically here. Europe is fucked without Gulfstream, eventual Ice age.

 

[Derec]

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%.

That is bullshit.

As you can see, China emits nearly twice as much as US. They are also increasing their emissions significantly, in part due to all the coal-fired power plants.
China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds
Continuing to give China a virtual pass is a losing strategy. Worldwide, first priority should be getting out of coal. Coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel and is also very polluting in other ways (sulfur dioxide, particulates, mercury, even uranium).

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

What is bullshit is pretending that China does not need to mend their ways.

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"

That anecdote is not a good reason why Chinese government should be let off the hook for their pollution.
It is a good example of why we should implement a carbon tax, however. Unfortunately, states like Washington want to move in the opposite direction, which would lead to this guy paying less than with gasoline/diesel taxes.
Washington drivers would pay 2.5 cents per mile under recommendation
Note that Washington is a heavily Democratic state. The governor, Jay Inslee, was the "climate candidate" during the 2020 primaries.
If one must have a road use tax (eventually a necessity, but way premature I think) it should be in addition to, not instead of a carbon/gasoline tax, and it should be heavily dependent on vehicle weight. A flat per mile charge just subsidizes heavy vehicles that tear up the roads the most in addition to emitting more CO₂.

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. ~

I do not expect Chinese people to go without electric lights. I expect their government not to build new coal-fired power plants and to decommission existing ones as soon as possible. Getting out of coal burning globally asap should be the first priority of international climate policy.

 

[Derec]

China is most definitely part of the problem.

And a big part of the problem, too.

"China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas, saw its carbon dioxide emissions rise 4% in the first quarter of this year compared to the same period in 2022, reaching more than 3 billion tonnes, according to a new report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air."

All the coal-fired power plants they have been building being a big reason why.
Unfortunately, coal is not just the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, it is also the dirtiest. And all the air pollution - the SO₂, the particulates, the heavy metals like mercury and uranium, do not stay within their borders. For all of Herschel Walker's lack of eloquence, he wasn't completely wrong about China's "bad air".

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

That is true. But is there any political will in their Politburo? There need to be some trade incentives to encourage them to build nuclear plants and not coal plants for base load. Carrots and sticks. Partnerships with western nuke companies on one hand, and carbon taxes that would apply to Chinese imports on the other.

 

[Derec]

That's only 4° below boiling

Of what? Bromoethane?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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%.

That is bullshit.

As you can see, China emits nearly twice as much as US.

Ignoring population differences with China having 4 times the number of people as the US, China exports twice what the US exports. $500 billion (or roughly $1 in every $6) of their exports annually go to the US. Just how much of that pollution in production would be shown in the graph.

China shouldn't get a pass, but the US has exported a good deal of pollution overseas to China and other parts of Asia.

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

What is bullshit is pretending that China does not need to mend their ways.

China needs to reduce emissions, like we needed to do 40 years ago. Unfortunately too many people are whining and bitching about China (let's not forget about an under-developed India!).

But I must remind you, that the OP is quite at peace knowing that the US won't, China won't and we'll just get warmer, with upper level consequences being unknown at the moment.

 

[Derec]

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

Because they are the big part of the problem - they emit 2x as much carbon as US. Because even if US were to adopt and successfully implement the Green New Deal (an impossibility in itself) it wouldn't make much of a difference as long as China is building new coal-fired power plants.

Last I knew, the per capita Chinese carbon footprint was about a quarter of the American.

That is a very outdated figure, by more than a decade.
According to this, in 2020 US emitted 13.7 and China 8.2 tons per year and capita. That means that US emits 67% more CO₂ per capita than China, not four times as much. And China is increasing its per capita emissions, while most countries are decreasing theirs. In 2017 the ratio US/China per capita emissions was 2.04, and in 2020 it was 1.67.

And we westerners developed our economies without regard for climate change.

To be fair, we did not know about it at the time. Chinese know; they have no excuse.

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

Because they create more emissions than any other country by far, and they could rectify that by getting out of coal burning as soon as possible.

 

[Derec]

Ignoring population differences with China having 4 times the number of people as the US,

Irrelevant to the question of how much their emissions impact the global CO₂ concentration and thereby the global climate.

China exports twice what the US exports. $500 billion (or roughly $1 in every $6) of their exports annually go to the US. Just how much of that pollution in production would be shown in the graph.

That is not the reason to let them off the hook, or to pretend that they are only 1% of the problem as Tom is doing.
It is a reason to use trade policy to get them to clean up their act.

China needs to reduce emissions, like we needed to do 40 years ago. Unfortunately too many people are whining and bitching about China (let's not forget about an under-developed India!).

India is another big polluter, true. At least they are doing something about it.
Column: India's pledge to stop new coal power plants to hit key states
China is the leader in expanding coal power. That is bad news for the climate and they need to be taken to task on that.

It's not "whining and bitching" to point out that drastic emission cuts in US and EU are useless if other countries can increase their emissions at the same time.

But I must remind you, that the OP is quite at peace knowing that the US won't, China won't and we'll just get warmer, with upper level consequences being unknown at the moment.

I do not propose giving up. But it's a global problem that requires global solutions. Not solutions that would ruin our economy (like Green New Deal or smaller initiatives like the fracking ban) while letting China off the hook.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ignoring population differences with China having 4 times the number of people as the US,

Irrelevant to the question of how much their emissions impact the global CO₂ concentration and thereby the global climate.

China exports twice what the US exports. $500 billion (or roughly $1 in every $6) of their exports annually go to the US. Just how much of that pollution in production would be shown in the graph.

That is not the reason to let them off the hook, or to pretend that they are only 1% of the problem as Tom is doing.
It is a reason to use trade policy to get them to clean up their act.

Yeah and China is probably thinking, 'right after you'.

China needs to reduce emissions, like we needed to do 40 years ago. Unfortunately too many people are whining and bitching about China (let's not forget about an under-developed India!).

India is another big polluter, true. At least they are doing something about it.
Column: India's pledge to stop new coal power plants to hit key states
China is the leader in expanding coal power. That is bad news for the climate and they need to be taken to task on that.

It's not "whining and bitching"...

Until the US actually does something, it is bitching and whining. This isn't a "The World would be at Net Zero carbon if it wasn't for China" sort of thing. Also, there is the tiny issue of CO2 in the atmosphere that is cumulative, and all the chugging and polluting the US and West did from the Industrial Revolution on before China ever got to the party.

China needs to deal with the pollution, but China isn't the sole problem... the First World is. Our consumption is. Our inability to accept we can fuck up our habitat is.

to point out that drastic emission cuts in US and EU are useless if other countries can increase their emissions at the same time.

But I must remind you, that the OP is quite at peace knowing that the US won't, China won't and we'll just get warmer, with upper level consequences being unknown at the moment.

I do not propose giving up. But it's a global problem that requires global solutions. Not solutions that would ruin our economy (like Green New Deal or smaller initiatives like the fracking ban) while letting China off the hook.

 

[Elixir]

If China emits 2x USA pollution with 4x the people, what part of “we emit 2x per capita as Chinese” is so hard to grok?

Or are the China blamers thinking every true Murkin has a god given right to emit twice what any slant-eyed furriner does?

 

[Derec]

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

This. We need an "all of the above" approach.
We need to aggressively get out of coal globally. That includes China. Opposing domestic natural gas and pipelines is counterproductive.
We also need to diversify our access to metals needed for electrification of the economy. Metals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, lanthanides but also good old copper. That means dropping misguided opposition to domestic mining.
The world needs lithium. Opposing domestic sources is counterproductive.

We need more nuclear. Nuclear is very low carbon and very safe in comparison with other sources of energy. It is expensive, yes, much much of the expense is due to overly convoluted regulatory regime that should be reformed. One advantage of nuclear is that heat can also be used to increase efficiency of electrolytic hydrogen reduction.
3 Nuclear Power Plants Gearing Up for Clean Hydrogen Production

We also need to think seriously about more out of this world solutions. I mean things like the L1 sunshade. I know, I know, "Simpsons did it" but it could work.
 Space sunshade
They are not very far in development, but a Manhattan/Apollo style megaproject could make it a reality within a decade I think.

At least it would work order to reduce warming. Ocean acidification is another issue, but the sunshade could at least prevent catastrophic warming because eliminating fossil fuels altogether is a project that will take decades even under best case scenarios.

 

[Derec]

If China emits 2x USA pollution with 4x the people, what part of “we emit 2x per capita as Chinese” is so hard to grok?

Actually it is 1.67x as of 2020. And the ratio has been dropping.

Or are the China blamers thinking every true Murkin has a god given right to emit twice what any slant-eyed furriner does?

Per capita emissions are not relevant to the question of the overall impact on the climate, as I said before.
It's not about "god given right" or your racist imagery and poor spelling, it's about practical solutions. Like getting China to abandon coal power as the first priority.

 

[Derec]

Yeah and China is probably thinking, 'right after you'.

Such facile statements ignore things like China greatly expanding their coal power capacity.

Until the US actually does something, it is bitching and whining.

US is doing something. Between 2017 and 2020 US reduced our per capita emissions from 15.7 to 13.7 tons (-12.7%) while China increased theirs from 7.7 to 8.2 (+6.5%).
Source
US also greatly reduced the fraction of coal in our energy mix.

This isn't a "The World would be at Net Zero carbon if it wasn't for China" sort of thing. Also, there is the tiny issue of CO2 in the atmosphere that is cumulative, and all the chugging and polluting the US and West did from the Industrial Revolution on before China ever got to the party.

Nobody can change what happened since mid 19th century until now. We, as the humanity, can only influence what is happening now and what will happen in the future. And saying that China should just keep building new coal plants and increase their emissions until US is net zero is just stupid if your goal is to reduce global emissions rather than just to harm US economy with silly things like Green New Deal or fracking bans (fracked natural gas allowed us to reduce our reliance on coal btw, reducing per capita carbon emissions in the process).

China needs to deal with the pollution, but China isn't the sole problem... the First World is. Our consumption is. Our inability to accept we can fuck up our habitat is.

Nobody is saying that they are the sole problem - that's one whopper of a straw man. But neither are they 1% of the problem, as Tom is claiming; it is more like 30%. As in, almost a third of global CO₂ emissions are from China.
As a country, they emit twice as what we are emitting. About 3x what EU is emitting. And they are building a lot of new coal power plants, which is damaging both to the climate and to air and water quality. Think mercury in oceans affecting fish we eat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now, when say emit...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's only 4° below boiling

Of what? Bromoethane?

Remember, he's from a country that uses real numbers rather than our stupid freedom units.