How would you propose we actually combat climate change?
-
I am not a climate scientist and have not been to conferences but im a reasonably intelligent human who has five decades of experience on this planet and I can see we are already fucked in that things have changed in how the planet works. I see the storms (not just the news making ones but how unoften light rain has become around me and how often general storms have become), I see the flooding, I see the change in the seasons, etc. To me its now when are we fucked because again we already see that we are. To me its how roughly we want the fucking to be ultimately and can we bring it back down to a more tender and loving level.
To me its how roughly we want the fucking to be ultimately and can we bring it back down to a more tender and loving level.
More or less, yeah
-
Care to share examples of such misuse or alternative research?
wrote last edited by [email protected]the standard for LCA data precludes combining LCA studies because they use disparate methodologies. to establish this, all you need to do is read the LCA references poore-nemecek cites.
I haven't found alternative research. if you have, please let me know.
-
You missed a step: "Force States to invest in public transportation."
In America, There are so many states that have absolutely unbearable public transportation because they are significantly underfunded
I consider public transportation part of infrastructure
-
Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)
I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.
Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.
I know yall will have fun with this!
I think it's too late. But theoretically speaking, it would require totalitarian measures because people will not willingly choose degrowth and a significant decrease to their standard of living. People will not choose "less."
You would also have to get all nations across the globe to magically work together. The reason is that those who limit themselves based on sustainability will be outcompeted by those who don't impose such limitations. To use an example that is relevant to the present: as much hand-wringing as there is about AI and its various hazards (environmental and otherwise), simply "not doing" AI isn't really an option so long as other parts of the world are going for it. Opting out of an arms race can put you at a severe disadvantage.
Human nature is really working against us.
-
Before trump? Pretty well, EVs became much more common because of grants and funds. Wind and solar is cheaper now than nat. Gas and coal because of funding that pushed the tech further. We just need more funding put towards it. Good luck banning oil.
And none of that slowed down oil and gas production, at all. Did it? Why would it? The oil and gas industry makes billions in profit, every year...largely due to the subsidies and grants provided by the government. They are funding the problem, along with the solutions.
So, of course, they are never going away. Climate change is only going to continue to get worse, because no one is willing to do what's actually necessary in order to change anything.
It doesn't matter how many alternatives there are available. They aren't going to stop producing it, unless they are forced to.
-
Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)
I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.
Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.
I know yall will have fun with this!
You are asking two how to questions "combat climate change" and "reduce emissions"
To realistically combat climate change:
- Admit that we need to try geoengineering (we are already doing this with all the CO~2~ and CH~4~ going into the atmosphere)
- Weather it is SO~2~ injection or cloud seeding to artificially increase the albido; we need to reduce incident solar radiation to give us a few more decades to actually reduce emissions
To reduce emissions:
- Tackle the biggest emissions first.
- Electrification of the passenger fleet; that means batteries. Keep fuel cells for heavy transport (maybe)
- Encourage electric biking. And other micro-mobility. Along with better public transport.
- Normalise a historical style diet, meat is a treat only once or twice a week.
- Reduce concrete construction; keep it for the important things like the foundations.
- Reduce the practice of packaging everything in plastic; again keep it for the important things only like electrical insulation.
- Massive ramp up of solar and wind around the world.
- Where we use fossil fuels, ask is this important enough to use FF here?
Carbon taxes:
- Tax CO~2~e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at a reasonable rate to encourage all of the reduction measures.
- At less than $65NZD/T the cost is too low to encourage significant movement on the issues.
- Have a ratcheting scheme in the CO~2~ market, i.e. add $5-8/yr/T for CO~2~e; in 10 years the price will be between $110-140/T. At the 10yr mark, make the ratchet $10-15/yr/T.
- Add a carbon tariff; basically make it more expensive to buy from countries that are not pulling their weight.
- Be careful not to double tax, this is important for buy in from the public. i.e. the carbon tax on fuel should be exempt from sales tax, taxing a tax is a great way to alienate people.
-
And none of that slowed down oil and gas production, at all. Did it? Why would it? The oil and gas industry makes billions in profit, every year...largely due to the subsidies and grants provided by the government. They are funding the problem, along with the solutions.
So, of course, they are never going away. Climate change is only going to continue to get worse, because no one is willing to do what's actually necessary in order to change anything.
It doesn't matter how many alternatives there are available. They aren't going to stop producing it, unless they are forced to.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-renewable-energy-by-country-in-2022/
The fuck are you talking about?
It absolutely has. At this point you're not even arguing in good faith, your just spouting silliness.
-
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-renewable-energy-by-country-in-2022/
The fuck are you talking about?
It absolutely has. At this point you're not even arguing in good faith, your just spouting silliness.
Why are you showing data on renewables? Of course their use is increasing. Our overall demand for power is increasing all the time. Renewables aren't the problem.
Oil production, is. And aside from a few outliers involving economic collapses, production has been steadily increasing for decades, without any signs of slowing down.
Nothing will change unless we do something to stop that. Adding renewables to the supply, does nothing to decrease the effects of fossil fuel use, unless you stop using fossil fuels. How is this so hard for you to understand?
-
the standard for LCA data precludes combining LCA studies because they use disparate methodologies. to establish this, all you need to do is read the LCA references poore-nemecek cites.
I haven't found alternative research. if you have, please let me know.
Thanks, will pay closer attention to that.
-
You are asking two how to questions "combat climate change" and "reduce emissions"
To realistically combat climate change:
- Admit that we need to try geoengineering (we are already doing this with all the CO~2~ and CH~4~ going into the atmosphere)
- Weather it is SO~2~ injection or cloud seeding to artificially increase the albido; we need to reduce incident solar radiation to give us a few more decades to actually reduce emissions
To reduce emissions:
- Tackle the biggest emissions first.
- Electrification of the passenger fleet; that means batteries. Keep fuel cells for heavy transport (maybe)
- Encourage electric biking. And other micro-mobility. Along with better public transport.
- Normalise a historical style diet, meat is a treat only once or twice a week.
- Reduce concrete construction; keep it for the important things like the foundations.
- Reduce the practice of packaging everything in plastic; again keep it for the important things only like electrical insulation.
- Massive ramp up of solar and wind around the world.
- Where we use fossil fuels, ask is this important enough to use FF here?
Carbon taxes:
- Tax CO~2~e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at a reasonable rate to encourage all of the reduction measures.
- At less than $65NZD/T the cost is too low to encourage significant movement on the issues.
- Have a ratcheting scheme in the CO~2~ market, i.e. add $5-8/yr/T for CO~2~e; in 10 years the price will be between $110-140/T. At the 10yr mark, make the ratchet $10-15/yr/T.
- Add a carbon tariff; basically make it more expensive to buy from countries that are not pulling their weight.
- Be careful not to double tax, this is important for buy in from the public. i.e. the carbon tax on fuel should be exempt from sales tax, taxing a tax is a great way to alienate people.
increase the albido
My brain saw this as 'libido' for a second. I was like, you want us to fuck our way to carbon neutrality?
I was about to suggest cross-posting to imgur when I realized I merely misread the word
![😕](https://forum.agnos.is/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f615.png?v=704ab443e62 ":\")
-
increase the albido
My brain saw this as 'libido' for a second. I was like, you want us to fuck our way to carbon neutrality?
I was about to suggest cross-posting to imgur when I realized I merely misread the word
Well it is a hypothesis that needs testing...
-
Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)
I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.
Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.
I know yall will have fun with this!
Seize political power at every level.
Do what you can. Compromise. Tell voters the stupid shit they wanna hear about kitchen table issues, or whatever it takes -
Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)
I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.
Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.
I know yall will have fun with this!
We need a binding international treaty implementing carbon taxes.
They're unpopular so we need to take this decision out of the hands of politicians who might be tempted to defect the next time they're up for reelection, they should only be responsible for the implementation of the policy that was already agreed to and can't easily be wriggled out of.
-
I'm doing my part by not having children.
If there's no humans there cannot be pollution.
As a matter of fact, there can still be pollution from things such as volcanoes.
We just make it worse by sheer volume.
-
Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)
I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.
Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.
I know yall will have fun with this!
Make it socially unacceptable to adopt and maintain some behaviours.
It will take generations, but it’s the only way to have the political support to reject certain things.
-
increase the albido
My brain saw this as 'libido' for a second. I was like, you want us to fuck our way to carbon neutrality?
I was about to suggest cross-posting to imgur when I realized I merely misread the word
In your defense, it’s actually spelled “albedo”.
-
We need a binding international treaty implementing carbon taxes.
They're unpopular so we need to take this decision out of the hands of politicians who might be tempted to defect the next time they're up for reelection, they should only be responsible for the implementation of the policy that was already agreed to and can't easily be wriggled out of.
Oh yeah? And how are other countries going to enforce it if one country breaks the treaty? With bombs? Bombs that release CO2? Think it through! /s
-
Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)
I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.
Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.
I know yall will have fun with this!
Major corporations caused this, only major corporations can solve it. Laws would have to be passed requiring them to offset the damage from everything they do. Coops would need to be set up wherever possible for one industry to reuse waste from another. Subsidies would need to be ethically set up to encourage industry involved with cleaning the environment. Cooperation between nations to combat global issues would be needed. Actual consequences for industries it nations that violate. Education!! And most importantly convince half the world's population to give a shit or even believe the problem exists. I've probably missed some.
The alternative would be magic.
Yeah, between the two, I think magic is probably more realistic. Let's go with that.
-
This response is focused on the US since that's the place I already have a very good idea of the current laws and challenges affecting climate action. I'd start by passing the following legislation immediately:
- Mandate remote work options for all positions that can be performed remotely. We saw during the pandemic how much commuting to the office negatively impacts the environment as well as people's lives.
- Carbon tax with a gradual but short (say 4 year) implementation period where it rachets up to the full tax value for carbon emissions directly created by the industry. The carbon tax is intended to make polluting and wasteful choices far more expensive than cleaner alternatives as well as raise tax dollars for significant infrastructure redevelopment
- Create new taxes and tax breaks plus subsidies for rental properties with poor insulation to encourage updating all rental properties to have modern insulation (and similar tax breaks and subsidies for homeowners to upgrade their insulation)
- Federally allow the construction of ADUs in all residential zone types (likely also creating a more relaxed permitting process and building code for ADUs to reduce cost and encourage their construction)
- Federally allow 2 family housing in all single family zoning (meaning a single family zoned lot can now have the main dwelling converted into a duplex plus an ADU constructed, tripling the permitted density)
- Federal tax break and subsidy for the purchase, maintenance and use of bicycles including ebikes and bike trailers (many places are bikable but people just don't choose to bike. For example, every small town is mostly bikable within town save for any highways that cut through them, and residential streets are very safe places to bike even if they don't contain dedicated bike infrastructure)
- Gradually but significantly increase annual vehicle registration fees, racheting them from the current ~$120 per year to ultimately cost several thousand dollars per year, with some discounts available to those who do not live in an incorporated community, NEVs and classic cars, thereby greatly discouraging vehicle ownership and car commuting. Also instituting significantly higher registration fees for heavier vehicles
In the longer term I'd also take the following steps:
- Use carbon taxes to fund a massive transit shift away from private cars to build more railroads and better bike infrastructure
- Nationalize the north American freight rail network and turn all railroads into rail operators, and either an existing federal agency or a new agency takes over maintainance, dispatching and expansion of the rail network, significantly lowering the bar for new railroad services and companies to be created
- Massively expand Amtrak services with many new routes and expanded service on existing routes
And for an even longer term cultural shift to encourage slower growth I'd pass the following legislation:
- Impliment UBI as an eventual replacement for all social safetynet programs. Probably a value of around $1k/month per adult and $3k/month per retiree/disabled adult would make it enough that creative individuals could live entirely off of the UBI but low enough to still encourage working. Most importantly this UBI would be decoupled from the stock market so stock market crashes would not affect people's ability to retire. This fits into climate legislation as it removes one of the primary incentives for infinite economic growth (saving for retirement)
- Strong right to repair legislation combined with minimum warranty terms of 5-10 years (plus minimum expectations for warranties such as limiting how long a repair/replacement may take to receive) for products to ensure higher quality construction
- Greatly expand the EPA's powers so that a nimble agency can forcibly stop companies from finding new ways to legally pollute our world, as well as providing a second mandate to the EPA to help consumers live more sustainably (this could come in the form of EPA-funded repair workshops and tool libraries for example, probably also EPA-funded vehicle rentals including ebike and ebike trailer rentals so that people can more easily go car-free)
And that's what I have off the top of my head. Start with the changes that will make a big impact without requiring individual lifestyle change, and in the longer term financially encourage a more sustainable lifestyle. Removing the financial forces that encourage wasteful resource consumption can be all of the incentive needed for people to live much more sustainably and can be enough to put the world's climate goals within reach
wrote last edited by [email protected]None of this is realistic though. What you're asking for is akin to an absolute miracle. Where would the political forces come from that do that? How could a majority be motivated to vote them into office? How could we get a whole capitalist machinery on board not to counteract and sabotage this?
They're good ideas, but realistically speaking we have to start somewhere else.
-
First, people need to accept that we exist within a culture of overconsumption that directly contributes to climate change. Sacrifices to common conveniences will need to be made before we can make any meaningful change.
I'm not saying this is all on the individual. Corporations contribute tremendous waste. But they do so in service to society's demand for convenience and instant gratification. We all need to learn to live with less.
And to add: Corporations won't adjust without being forced politically or economically, and both of those options depend entirely on individual action - either at the voting booth or with our purchases.
