Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

oh i dunno i assumed so. a program of readings assigned by philosopher types into buddhist meditation and fin-de-sicle pessimism studies seemed to be pretty easily imaginable to me.

anyway the full essay is not as good as i thought - bit dogmatic and schematic, if not sophomoric, to basically adopt a two-worlds view that gives the first noble truth a foundational status w.r.t. every single other product of philosophical or religious culture - but the bit about sincere questions and pessimism seemed nice to me. a definite structural weakness of the way philosophy programs in general, and no doubt related ones, are incentivized toward offering activism-inflected educational promises.

The New Politics of Climate Change

decent article in the atlantic about where things stand after the election

I'm vegan. I turn off lights in *every* unoccupied room. I drive a used car, sparingly, and long to move to where I can rely on public transport and a bicycle. I'm voting for the greener of viable candidates every election. I've given up hobbies like overseas scuba diving as a) I couldn't justify the air travel emissions, and b) I got depressed looking at bleached, lifeless reefs. I'll never have children.

I don't think I've convinced a single other human being to become conscious. Of late, I've mostly spent my eco-conscious internet time explaining to teens/students that human extinction won't come in their lifetime, so they should step away from that ledge, but civilizational suicide will occur over the next two centuries on business as usual trajectories.

I've been feeling this a lot lately, and it's getting me down. I'm friends with and work with plenty of intelligent younger people, who ostensibly care about the environment but balk at the idea of doing things that could drastically reduce their carbon footprint, e.g. giving up a car, giving up meat, or probably the biggest thing - overseas travel (this is the one that makes you come across as the biggest loony I've found). I firmly believe that the only way we have a chance at saving ourselves is through mass governmental action, but I also feel that the pressure for that isn't going to happen unless individuals are willing to show that they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for that to occur. I am finding it increasingly harder not to become sanctimonious and judgemental - I know that it's not the best way to approach these things with people. But I feel very deflated and exhausted when I see that no one is willing to make the sacrifices needed for effective action.

It depresses and angers me when I see people obsessed with their individual carbon footprint. By all means do whatever makes you feel better about your life, but your individual carbon footprint essentially does not matter. 100 companies generate 71% of global emissions *on their own*. Anyone trying to sell you that ethical consumption measures undertaken in our private lives are the way out of this mess is a fucking rube or worse.

I reject that kind of defeatist thinking, because we absolutely do play a part in that system, and we absolutely can influence how it works if enough people decide to do something about it. Of course individual changes in the system we're in right now is not the way out of it. As I said, I believe that mass governmental action is the only way out. But those companies, and their methods of production, do not exist without demand for their products. An individual might not make a difference, but if enough people do change the ways they consume, then it absolutely can.

The main reason I can see for taking individual actions to reduce one's carbon footprint is so you can see that at least something is being done, which, however trivial it may be in the larger picture, is necessary in order to maintain a bare minimum of hope. It also provides an example to others that you take the issue seriously, even if they don't. Talking the talk and not walking the walk tends to undermine one's message of urgency.

I'm not saying it doesn't have optical value or whatever, but if that's all it amounts to in the end then all you're doing is "waling the walk" straight into the rising oceans. We can't let the primary onus be on individuals.

That's been the goal of the multinationals reaming the earth since they invented the rhetoric around littering.

We can't let the primary onus be on individuals.

OK. Now tell us how.

Sure, let me just draft the action plan to save the fucking planet.

But i all seriousness, only mass collective action in support of truly tranformative programs is going to get the job done. For more on how to do that in your community, talk to your local HOOS.

As I said, I believe that governmental action is the only way out.

An individual might not make a difference, but if enough people do change the ways they consume, then it absolutely can.

― triggercut, Wednesday, November 21, 2018 3:51 AM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

only mass collective action in support of truly tranformative programs is going to get the job done.

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:01 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I feel like we're all on the same page here

Largely, yes, I think so.

I can offer a little specialized knowledge re: another topic brought up earlier: cryptocurrency. Energy use associated with BTC mining is indeed horrific. Right now, the #2 crypto, Ethereum, is preparing for a move to a different system for achieving consensus called "Proof of Stake" (the current system used by most cryptos, including Ethereum and Bitcoin, is called "Proof of Work"). Switching to some version of Proof of Stake would shrink each currency's energy footprint down by a huge factor. I'm hopeful that the Bitcoin network will eventually make the move to PoS but I don't know what the precise likelihood is -- hopefully there's some momentum moving in that direction in that community. I only mention it because current projections about the amount of energy these networks will use over time are presumably not taking potential protocol changes into account.

God help us if the best we can do about global warming is inventing a new kind of cryptocurrency.

to be clear, changing the consensus model wouldn't invent any new networks/currencies, it would be essentially act as a sort of patch/update on existing currency networks

but anyway, the crypto sector should be very, very low on your list of concerns for future energy use reforms

like, if you're going to enter into the kind of prolonged international collaboration and complex regulatory and police work that would have to be undertaken in order to dismantle the Bitcoin network, then congratulations, you're now prepared to enact change in *much* more impactful ways in actually huge industries, though I certainly understand how cryptocurrency's energy use is uniquely grating

or probably the biggest thing - overseas travel

Actually something even bigger is the decision of having a child or not.

yep

always a popular one

'cryptocurrency's energy use is uniquely grating"

srsly, i read this "uniquely grafting" and i was, "lol you got THAT straight amigo."

> 100 companies generate 71% of global emissions

Rather, their customers do. Coal miners don't burn much coal.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/

i don't know if this has been posted yet.

i am highly ignorant of all kinds of science, especially climate science.

would it be possible to reverse climate change by blowing up a bunch of nukes in, say, the mojave desert? it would surely have unprecedented effects, but if global warming is threatening to snuff out human civilization, would drastic measures be justified?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Trolley_problem.png/1200px-Trolley_problem.png

Treesh, that's a geo-engineering "solution" -- other geo-engineering solutions that are more talked about is releasing sunlight blocking gases into the atmosphere or seeding the oceans with iron to promote algae growth to consume C02.

Pretend my formatting and grammar were correct there. I should also add that none of these solutions are testable until we actually attempt them, and we don't have a firm understanding of potential unintended consequences.

Yeah, I’m vaguely familiar. And the nukes option is obviously one of the worst, but just provocative in its simplicity. I’m just wondering when the point will come to think about these solutions. Clearly my preference is to move to green energy—something with benefits beyond stopping climate change—but if that doesn’t work...

It seems like if climate change really does threaten the viability of human civilization we will need to do whatever is necessary.

there’s no ‘if’

Ok fine. Then eventually one of these things will be tried, we can assume.

I know its not ideal but should it be dismissed, out of hand, as pointless or worse?

would it be possible to reverse climate change by blowing up a bunch of nukes in, say, the mojave desert?

very strangely reminiscent of the ending of the British sci-fi klassik The Day the Earth Caught Fire

well, here's one point in favor: we have a lot of nukes, just sitting around doing nothing

as Madame Albright might ask, what's the good of that?

"Nuke the Climate" has a ring to it

deserts aren’t just nuke playgrounds they have ecosystems

https://thetelltalemind.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/crackintheworlddm25hs.jpg

https://frinkiac.com/img/S08E07/768784.jpg

there used to a big argument within the environmental community about whether geoengineering should even be discussed as an option. scientists who advocated for geoengineering - even just as a backup backup backup plan - were often ostracized by environmental groups. (the general line of reasoning was usually based on "fears that the idea of unproven and potentially disastrous geoengineering technologies being an option to shield societies from the impacts of climate change could be used to distract policy makers and the public from addressing the core of the climate change issue – that is, curbing emissions in the first place.")

that debate seems to have subsided somewhat, and more people seem to be ok with the idea of exploring geoengineering. it's a difficult issue. i dread geoengineering. it seems incredibly risky, and there are so many better options. but i also have little faith in humanity to solve this problem in time. it goes far beyond individual action, or attacking the 100 companies that emit the majority of GHGs (as sanpaku said, their emissions are related to things they provide to their customers, and the reason they are all enormous world-destroying companies is because there's such a demand for what they're producing. it's not as simple as just asking them to please use clean renewable energy.) the US and EU are, to an extent, succeeding in capping GHG emissions are starting to reduce them. those successes are more than outweighed by growing emissions in China, and what's going to happen if/when India starts emitting at comparable levels as their economy continues to develop? and the rest of the world?

https://i.imgur.com/cH5jG4t.png

i don't mean to say it's impossible. the clean energy tech and policies are out there, already. there's a possibility that india and other developing countries could leapfrog the EU and US and China in clean tech. there are things that can be pursued to mitigate the damage. but geoengineering is starting to look more and more likely at some point. it is all really bleak to think about.

> 100 companies generate 71% of global emissions

Rather, their customers do. Coal miners don't burn much coal.

― Sanpaku, Wednesday, November 21, 2018 3:28 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not to dispute this but to complicate it: those customers live with lifestyle expectations created and normalized by our oil-soaked market culture, and under de facto energy monopolies enabled by specific forms of government action & inaction -- the demand for our unsustainable lifestyle exists because it's profitable, it's not profitable because the demand exists.

HOOS otmfm

Thats a good overview karl. It seems extremely odd to me that green energy has proven so difficult when we seem to transform the world every ten years in a million ways.

It seems extremely odd to me that green energy has proven so difficult when we seem to transform the world every ten years in a million ways.

it's frustrating, but it shouldn't be surprising. i'm just bullshitting here but three broad things come to mind.

1) sanpaku would be a much better person to weigh in on this, but there are many practical obstacles with overhauling energy systems from fossil fuels to clean energy, from production and refineries/electricity generation to public policy at the national, state, and local levels, all the way to transmission and consumption. you name it, there's a dilemma that needs to be worked through, and the big black cloud hanging over all of it is that until relatively recently fossil fuels were far cheaper than clean energy alternatives (because the true cost of fossil fuels would include the costs of pollution and climate change. but they're not currently factored in - they're "externalized"). even now, when clean energy is really taking off in some areas AND the price is comparable or less than fossil fuels, there are significant barriers to 100% renewable energy, even when it has strong public support (see https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/14/17853884/utilities-renewable-energy-100-percent-public-opinion)

2) in the exact opposite, wishy-washy direction, i think human beings often fail to do the correct thing even when it everyone agrees it should be done and is important. i'm probably just thinking of this because of my depresso-leanings, so it's in my mind a lot. but on a personal level, we obviously fail to do the right thing on a constant basis. at a local and state level, we do things like cut school funding and pay our teachers shit-wages, even though everyone agrees this is a terrible idea. cities widen roads all the time to fight traffic, even though anyone who has taken an urban planning course in the last 30 years knows it won't work.

Our annual reminder: Widening 👏 highways 👏 doesn't 👏 work 👏

This freeway -- LA's 405 -- was JUST widened at a cost of .6 billion. pic.twitter.com/vFSTmfdhnC

— Streetsblog USA (@StreetsblogUSA) November 21, 2018

our national infrastructure is crumbling, and building it back up is something that pretty much any reasonable person agrees with, would generate many jobs, and would also be a way to build up green infrastructure. even republicans that don't believe in climate change usually support getting away from our oil addiction so that we're not reliant on a country that murders children in Yemen on a regular basis.

but we don't do these things. or rather, we do, slowly and agonizingly, sort of in the right direction. there are reasons for all of those continual failures beyond just "we humans suck", but i'm just saying that the fact that there is an obvious thing we should do doesn't mean that we do that thing.

3) active resistance from oil and gas industry. they are the satanic poison cloud hovering above the big black cloud of externalized fossil fuel costs. they are straight up evil. they cheat, they lie, they manipulate people. they are directly responsible for untold human suffering, in the past and for many many years in the future. it is no exaggeration. they are the worst people in the entire universe.

our national infrastructure is crumbling, and building it back up is something that pretty much any reasonable person agrees with, would generate many jobs, and would also be a way to build up green infrastructure. even republicans that don't believe in climate change usually support getting away from our oil addiction so that we're not reliant on a country that murders children in Yemen on a regular basis.

*reproduces a very familiar drum*

imo make drawdown the blueprint for the green new deal

for sure! i think the energy is behind the idea, and the people acting in good faith are behind the idea. i do think we'll get there eventually, here in the US. unfortunately there are two things already out of our hands - whether it's already too late to avoid triggering feedback loops, and how the rest of the world will respond to the crisis now and for the next several decades. uncertainty on those things is no reason to avoid taking the necessary steps here and now, of course.

Off topic, but that thing about highway widening inducing demand is interesting. I didn't know that.

yeah i mean it strikes me that all action at this point is harm reduction and there shouldn't be any illusions about that

Has "mitigation" evolved into "harm reduction" in the vernacular now?

harm reduction is language that comes out of addiction treatment, suggests a policy approach that's about assuming a certain amount of harm is baked into a social process (e.g. 'heroin addicts are gonna inject drugs') so in addition to reducing the number engaged in the process we should work to minimize whatever vectors for harm we have access to ('we should provide safe needle exchanges')

didn't really mean it in the sense of 'mitigate climate change' as much as the sense of 'people are gonna die, let's try to make it fewer people'

Perhaps this was addressed in the flurry of responses, but:

> would it be possible to reverse climate change by blowing up a bunch of nukes in, say, the mojave desert?

No.

Nuclear winter has temporary effect on climate, on the order of a couple years to a decade. Thereafter, the climate returns to its prior state. In our case, an Earth system forced towards a higher energy state, but not yet at equilibrium.

It isn't the sand or nuclear products that bring nuclear winter, but soot injected by firestorms into the stratosphere. One hundred nukes at White Sands test range would have little effect, but detonate them over drought-striken Amazonian rainforest, or Siberian evergreens, or cities built of lumber and paper, then one gets the sort of firestorm required. For all the news about wildfires you've seen, I don't think we've had a "proper" firestorm, in which the fires themselves dictate local weather, since the bombings of Dresden and numerous Japanese cities in 1945.

This sort of small scale nuclear winter was modeled in the context of a regional nuclear war (eg, India v. Pakistan).

Robock et al, 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospher Chem Phys, 7(8), pp.2003-2012.

We ... calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply.

A global average surface cooling of −1.25 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still −0.5 °C

So, yes, a regional scale nuclear war in which tens of millions are incinerated would produce a temporary halt and reversal in climate change, but that soot settles out of the stratosphere over a decade or two and one's left with a worse situation than before. This isn't a purely theoretical scenario: India has fixed volume water rights to the tributaries of the Indus river, and once the Himalayan glaciers have melted and water is scarce, New Delhi could let the Indus go dry and Pakistan starve.

> that thing about highway widening inducing demand is interesting. I didn't know that.

It gets worse. Energy efficiency can increase consumption. Jevons paradox

We have to fundamentally change economic incentives and costs so that "living small" becomes a widespread goal of the masses, and not just for the woke. Otherwise, people will be happy to zip around in their Tesla's, oblivious of how their electricity is ultimately sourced. We may have to tackle the status tokens we've come to live for.

I saw something a few weeks ago, which struck me and seems related. California has strong economic incentives for rooftop solar. This makes sense for those with southward slanting roofs. However, the solar installers are finding that customers with houses facing north to their street are asking for their rooftop installation to be on their northward slanting roofs, so that the panels are at such an oblique angle to the sun that its no longer economic. Ie, a major motivator for home solar now is that its just another status token, and dare I say, virtue signal.

yeah that pretty much skews the overall carbon footprint into the "bad" side, solar panels barely break even (in terms of carbon) with good placement the last time I checked.

Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2018