Fair enough... one of us is going to be shocked then...
I suspect it will be you, but we'll see
Fair enough... one of us is going to be shocked then...
I suspect it will be you, but we'll see
Part of the issue seem to be a lot of people sitting on their fat arses waiting for someone else to do something.
I'm happy to take action, if I thought that action would be effective.
I can't speak for anyone else, but me personally I've started adapting already. I'm sourcing most of my supplies from local stores that I can cycle or walk to.
That isn't adapting, that is kidding yourself. You're doing something so you're patting yourself on the back. But it won't make enough of a difference to change anything.
If everyone did something similar we'd be done
But they won't, and that is the reality that you miss.
The magnitude of climate change to come if we continue business as usual cannot effectively be prepared for.
Well, it can be or it can't be, but at this point, I don't think it can be stopped.
It will be at least 4 degrees C and up to 9 degrees C warmer global average for 1000s of years.
If we can't figure out how to build starships to get off this rock in the next 1,000 years, then we probably don't deserve to survive.
We may well hit 4 degrees, I think 3 degrees is all but certain at this point. All the vain efforts to stop it will not be effective.
You didn't even read what I wrote. Try reading and replying to what was written, rather than posting a reply to something that isn't even there.
There is plenty to worry about, I'm quite concerned over the changes that a 3 degree temp rise are going to bring.
I just don't think it can be stopped at this point. Preparing for it is far more useful than making vain attempts to stop it that will fail.
You "can't stop driving" why?
Because the world that I live in and can't easily move from requires it.
The city I live in, the places I have to go each day are not reachable via any other means than driving.
And in this case, the *I* isn't just me, it is all the people like me. Even if I move somewhere else, someone will just move here.
You have to change millions of people's behavior, a few don't matter.
I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area in Texas. There are 7 million people here, spread out over a large area. The city isn't going to be bulldozed tomorrow and it is too spread out for anything other than cars to work.
That is what it is, it isn't going to change in the amount of time we have left before CO2 passes the danger levels NASA talks about.
Because that is the case, trying to stop it is a waste of time. Instead, that time and money would be better spent on preparing for the changes that a 3 degree temp rise is going to cause.
In the long run the only way to stop the problem is to reduce net carbon emissions to zero.
That is where the 50% total worldwide cut comes from.
From the information on NASA's web site, about half the CO2 being emitted is being absorbed by the planet, the other half is going into the air.
So we have to cut 50% (at least) of our current total CO2 production.
I just don't see that happening, not even close. That is why I'm suggesting the ship has sailed and we have to prepare for a new world that is coming.
We can roll back the point of no return through carbon sequestration
That sounds great... when posted on Slashdot... if it were that easy, don't you think it would be done?
It can be done at small scale, the trick is doing it at the scale required. And that isn't so easy.
I think the "point of no return" concept is doing more harm than good.
At what point in the sinking process should the Captain of the Titanic have accepted that the ship was beyond the point of no return and was going to the bottom of the ocean?
People won't have to put solar up, power companies will gladly build solar farms and sell you solar electricity for the madly expensive price of about what your electricity currently costs.
I can't even buy wind power for the price of coal power, please pass what you're smoking...
Solar power is really expensive.
So you're suggesting that we start WWIII to get things moving?
Because frankly, without that happening, you're not going to get Joe Sixpack to give up his pickup truck and his AC.
If you DO push the changes too fast, then you'll perhaps get what you want, which is another world war.
Of course, then we still have the problem of getting rid of gas cars. That's a tougher problem, but becomes more viable every day.
Yes, it does... but the question is, does it become viable in the timeframe required?
I can see a time, perhaps around year 2100 or so, when EVs become standard and gas cars look as silly as steam powered cars.
But by that time, the damage will have been done, the temps will have risen by 3-4 degrees, and the change will have come far too late.
Even if we throw everything we have at it, it would take decades to replace even 50% of the cars on the road with EVs. People who promote EVs as a solution to climate change simply haven't done the math.
We're not perfect but we try.
Trying is nice, but it doesn't mean anything unless you 8 years old playing soccer.
You succeed or you don't, there is no try.
All your trying isn't going to stop the train, and that is why you're missing the whole point.
The most important thing is we are fully willing to subject ourselves to a significant and steadily increasing simple carbon tax on all our fossil fuel use.
Sure, but all that does is wealth transfer and harm poor people. It doesn't magically stop the coal from getting burned. Even if the USA stopped burning coal outright, it would get burned somewhere else.
We've super-insulated and sealed air leaks in our small house and have double and triple-glazed windows.
Good for you that you can afford to have that done. So can I, but not everyone can.
We ride our bikes and walk and take transit most of the time, reserving the vehicle mostly for weekend trips and occasional hauling items.
That is not a practical option for a billion people.
While it's hard to do as much as is needed while living in our current cities, with our oil-fueled supply chains, what's most important in my opinion is to advocate for tax-shift measures of a scale needed to significantly, steadily change behaviour through the operation of the (tilted-playing field) market; to be willing to be subjected to significant fossil-fuel taxation, and to work to come up with clever new ways of doing things that use less fossil-fuel.
That's nice, but all of that will do nothing to stop climate change. It won't even noticeably slow it down. And most people aren't willing to do what you've done.
So grats to you, but it doesn't scale and isn't going to make a noticeable difference.
Instead we need to prepare for the change that is so clearly coming.
I think you missed the point about your defeatist attitude.
It isn't so much a defeatist attitude as a realistic one.
Have you ever heard of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"?
If you were doing that as the ship was sinking and I tried to point out that it won't change the outcome, would you then call me a defeatist? Or am I the one living in reality?
Once Titanic hit the iceberg, her fate was sealed. Run the water pumps, don't. Move stuff around, steam ahead, reverse, have everyone run to the back of the ship, doesn't matter. In a few hours she'll be headed to the bottom of the ocean.
Do you accept that outcome and move on, or fight it to the last second?
I have looked at NASA's number, they are sobering. I don't for one second think the PhDs at NASA are dummies, so for the moment, I'm willing to take them at their word.
The current efforts in Paris are largely aimed at going over the cliff more slowly, but I'd submit that we'd be better off accepting that the ship is sinking and instead build more lifeboats.
Had the Captain and crew of the Titanic accepted in the first 15 min that the ship was doomed, could they have used the few hours they had to build makeshift liferafts out of decking and other materials for the healthiest passengers to get onto to try and save as many people as possible?
What would it have taken for them to stop trying to save the ship and instead save the people?
By not even trying you are pushing the car closer and closer to the cliff. Do we really need to keep accelerating toward a cliff we know exists?
A cliff is a good example...
The climate change activists are trying to avoid the cliff. I'm saying their efforts will fail and we're going over, regardless of what we do.
Once you accept that the cliff is unavoidable, then you have to figure out what to do about that.
Regarding the cliff, does it really matter if you go over it at 50mph or 60mph? Maybe, perhaps... but if all your efforts to stop slow you down to 50mph, but you end up hitting rocks at the bottom, who cares? But if instead, you just accept that the cliff is unavoidable and go over at 60mph, but instead you have a parachute because you used your efforts to get that instead of slow down, you'll be much better off.
So I submit that we stop trying to slow down and instead build a parachute.
We need to stop burying our heads in the sand and start actually doing something.
Like what? All I hear is "build wind, build solar, buy an EV, that will do it!". But even if we do a lot of that, it won't stop us from going over the cliff. So it really isn't a solution to anything.
We don't need to go back to caveman days but we could actually put some effort in.
It is quite possible, with 7.4 billion people in the world and 200k more added every day, that yes we WOULD have to go back to a very different time. Except that if we do, half the people would starve to death.
Every day more people in the world move towards the American lifestyle, not the other way around. A few people reducing their consumption doesn't counter 10 joining them from the bottom, at least not to the extent required.
You need only look at Reagan removing solar panels from the White house to see a long history of Republicans being against the progression of our energy policy.
That is a fair point, but that ship sailed a long time ago. I was a kid when Reagan was President, so that isn't my the fault of most working people today.
Nothing the Democrats could do will stop the car either at this point. The time to stop the car was perhaps 30-40 years ago. Or longer, that is another debate for another day, and doesn't really matter in the end.
We are no more going to replace coal with nuclear than we are going to replace it with solar.
Should we? Perhaps, but the anti-nuclear crowd is currently winning that debate.
In fact, the people currently demanding a solution in general are largely against all specific solutions that might actually do something.
Their answer seems to be "wind and solar solve everything", which is absurd, but they don't want to hear it.
These are not the same things. I get from A to B most of the time on a bike.
I hear lots of people say that, and it sure sounds nice. It isn't very realistic however...
How do I take the kids to school on a bike? How do I go to the grocery store on a bike and bring home enough to feed a family of 5? While it is 30 degrees/100 degrees outside? In the rain?
Once you have a car, you use it, then you move to the suburbs where everything is driving distance, not walking/biking distance.
Buy a compact instead of a pick up. etc. etc.
Ahh, that "minor inconvenience" thing... So you want me to go out and spend money to replace my large vehicle, which carries 7 people and their stuff comfortably, with a Honda Civic that does neither?
And you want everyone else to do that too?
In the end though, the easiest thing is the most logical thing is to massively switch over to hydro and wind (with some solar)
Sure, that is easy to say... but hydro is largely tapped out and there are environmental reasons to not dam every river on Earth.
Wind will grow, but it costs more than coal/natural gas. Yes, yes, I see people post all the time that wind is now *cheap*, but I don't see it. When I pick my power company and my power options, wind always costs more. I have the choice to buy 100% wind power, but it costs about 30% more than coal power does.
And I live in Texas, we are the largest wind producing state in the US. The numbers for solar are even worse. If your plan is to ignore the economics, well, you need to pay a visit to reality land, and see how to pay for it without using other people's money.
There is no excuse not to do these things
Sure there is, they are expensive... time consuming, and ultimately won't change the outcome...
In reading the various posts here, I find that many people have really no idea of the scale of the problem. We either have to end our way of life as we know it, or accept that 2 degrees C increase is going to be passed without a thought and probably 3 degrees within our lifetime. 4 within our children's lifetime, but hopefully we stop it before it gets there.
75% total energy reduction, 90% carbon reduction, in the USA, would be required to stop it. Other nations will have to do less, but still large reductions. This will not happen. The refusal to accept this is harming the cause.
You of course are correct...
Given time, we will slowly move to something other than gas burning cars. But it will take a lifetime to see happen.
I'll be shocked if the EV percentage in the US is more than 10% in 20 years, and that is new vehicle sales, not total vehicles on the road. I'm not sure if I'll see 10% of the total vehicles on the road be EV in my lifetime (about 40 more years).
My children, who are between 5 and 10 years old, may see it, and may even see 20%... but by that time we'll be far past 2 degrees C and perhaps 3...
The timeframe we have left to make the changes and the time it will take to make them, simply don't match up.
Anything cut to length will be too short.