How would you propose we actually combat climate change?
-
Ummm, ok. And how's that been working, so far?
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.
-
poore-nemecek 2018 misuses their source data.
Care to share examples of such misuse or alternative research?
-
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.
