16 replies to this topic

[Reacker]

http://www.flassbeck...e-planet-apart/

 

Thoughts?

 

 

In late 2007 I did my first significant reading into climate change and came away with the impression that the 1 degree C increase in global temperature by 2100 was survivable given that I personally would have enough time to make enough money to buy land in areas predicted to be least effected by the problem, and that for our civilization in general that 90 years was enough time to deal with the problem while also developing the currently undeveloped nations. A 1 degree C hotter world with less biological diversity and a different coast line is not ideal, but it's livable (as long as you're not a poor person living in Bangladesh) and arguably a reasonable exchange for developing our civilization out of the poverty and ignorance that us and our ancestors have lived with since we started chipping tools out of rocks. 

 

Now that the current prediction is 3.5 degrees C increase by 2035, and that its though that at that point our entire ecosystem will collapse, I have really have no idea what to do since it's clear that not only will I not likely be able to buy my way out of the situation, but as a civilization we are literally killing ourselves at a rate that could mean that many of us here in this forum face potential starvation in just 3 or 4 decades. 

 

As the article points out, the drastic action that is needed to stop the worst predictions from coming true will certainly not be coming from the current government establishments of the world as those that do acknowledge the reality of human driven climate change aren't doing anything about it for various political and short-sited monetary reasons, and additionally that many first world nations that could potentially do something about the issue do not have governments that even acknowledge the problem!

 

I know from personal experience that there is a suicidal level of insanity in denying the reality of this problem in the US. I am working on a mathematical modelling project with a government researcher in the conservative coastal state that stands to suffer the most from the effects of climate change, and he has said that he has to be careful when mentioning climate change in his work because doing so in the wrong company is a potential career ender!!! In the various models that his agency runs to predict various things, whether or not to include predicted effects of climate change in long range predictions depends entirely on the source of the money being provided! This is absolutely insane. Even if you don't believe in climate change or whatever reason, there is no scientifically sound reason to ban its investigation.

 

As a civilization we are shooting ourselves with the slowest moving bullet that we either acknowledge and refuse to dodge, or that we are pretending doesn't exist even as it inevitably, visibly moves towards our head.

 

Since I can't do anything about the problem personally, and since the people who have the power to do so clearly won't do anything out of selfish ignorance, the only thing that comes to mind is that I wonder if in a couple decades we can put together a few probes in permanent orbit around the sun containing a history of our civilization in a very stable medium with a final section on how we knew what was coming but couldn't put aside our idiotic tendencies long enough to do something about it. That way if some time in the distant future alien explorers of whatever sort happen to stop by and see the ruins of our civilization that we ourselves destroyed, they will know that at least we were smart enough to see it coming.

Edited by Reacker, July 24 2016 - 10:08 AM.
Removed profanity

[Subverted]

See...on one hand I am completely on board with climate change being a HUGE and very likely life altering fact of life in our near future...

 

Then on the other hand I don't understand the mainstream approaches to fighting global warming/climate change. Is the USA a part of the problem? Yes...but so many other places are so much worse and do nothing to slow down their contributing factors. South America is facing huge water shortages because they have finally cut down enough of the rainforest that they broke the weather cycles they helped to shape. China fundamentally altered their interior continent's weather by planting some 66 billion trees in places that could not adequately support them which caused even worse desertification instead of helping mitigate it. Meanwhile the entire 2nd and 3rd world is full of people who only want to better their own sad and uncomfortable lives and honestly probably don't care what will happen in a decade from now much less two.

 

We contribute here in the USA with places like Las Vegas, a monument to our hubris really. Fountains and pools of water as decorations in a desert. 600,000 people living in a place with very little natural water...but still - I think China and South America are the two main driving forces behind this mess we are in.

[Reacker]

While I understand how inherently unfair it might seem that here in the US we're talking about what we should to as part of a solution given that at this point China and other regions are also a huge part of the problem (ignoring that we were lucky enough to industrialize 100 years ahead of them), I don't think that fairness really matters anymore. We're talking about a realistic possibility of preventable extinction of ourselves in our own lifetime. That means that in a few decades we might not care that China and Brasil were also spewing carbon because we'll be too busy wondering where our next meal comes from because there's either not enough water in some areas and far too much in others, and because all but the most resilient local fauna couldn't survive super cold winters and super hot summers.

 

What we really need to do is collectively spend a few trillion dollars upgrading the world's energy infrastructure to renewables in over a few short years.  This more than likely means that we tax payers in the US and EU would be subsidizing solar and wind in various poor countries around the world. Fair by the standards of last century? Nope. Fair by the standards of 30 or 40 years from now when we would give anything to have spent that money in such a manner when we had the chance? Yes, absolutely.

 

Not that it matters, the political will for that doesn't exist now thanks to corrupt politicians who own or are bought out by coal, oil and gas or who are members of the religious right or are elected by a religious right constituency. And I also do think that we in the US bear a significant responsibility for addressing our carbon output as well. We in the developed world put enough carbon in the air on our own that even without China and wherever else we'd still be having this problem in a few decades more regardless. If we all have to take a hit in our standard of living to not die I think it's worth it. 

Edited by Reacker, July 24 2016 - 12:24 AM.

[Subverted]

The USA could go completely carbon neutral or even carbon negative and it would not improve the outlook for the planet's future at all. The driving forces behind climate change exist beyond our borders and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

 

The human population is far beyond the carrying capacity of this planet.

[Reacker]

Did you even read what I said?  You're just saying exactly what you said in your previous comment, without addressing what I said in response. Ugh...every.single.time. Why Sub, why?

 

I'm saying that not just do we in the US need to fix our carbon problem, but in the developed world we need to be massively fund the developing world to fix their carbon infrastructure issues as well. The entire point of this post is that everyone needs to get over their provincial attitudes immediately while we still can and fix the problem everywhere. The consequence of not doing so is food and water shortages, extreme temperatures everywhere, and eventual extinction. As in, literally everyone dies at once. It doesn't matter that other countries are a significant part of the problem. Even if the US was already carbon neutral we should still be paying to fix the rest of the world because global warming isn't selective. Oceanic ecosystem collapse doesn't care which countries were most responsible. Just ask the small Pacific island nations that are already flooding out.

 

And your presumption that US isn't a part of the problem is blatantly false. We're second only to China, and we're not that far behind from them either. Even if the rest of the world refuses to cooperate we should still fix our problem in the US because a double digit decrease in global Carbon emissions is worth perusing on its own merit regardless of what the rest of the world does. 

[Subverted]

My point isn't that we arent a (tiny) part of the problem but that no matter how much money we throw at this problem it cannot be fixed at current population levels. Even aside from that it is completely against my personal morals to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. I don't want to live in whatever fantasy world you think we live in where that is ok. Aside from that your entire premise is based in conflating numerous issues with only a tenuous relationship like "oceanic ecosystem collapse" with sea levels rising.

 

The developing world has completely undermined the most critical natural infrastructure in the South American rainforests, African rainforests, and then all of China's crazy population + desertification. There is not enough money in the entire world to even begin fixing those problems...not that we even can when people are continuing to cut down the forests so they can feed themselves. There are too many people.

[Reacker]

Leaving all the other stuff you said aside, most of which the article addresses if you'd bothered to read it (which apparently you didn't), what kind of moral system could you possibly have that prefers extinction of all humans rather than "meddle in the affairs of other countries"??? 

[Subverted]

The main part I really was dissenting with from the article was "The world needs regulation and democracy."

 

Do you really think someone in a third world country will vote against making their own life better in the interest of trying to stop climate change? No democratic country is going to vote to force the people of Las Vegas or even Los Angeles to pack up and move to more sustainable places. Nobody in Africa is going to vote for something that makes it harder for them to eat.

 

What you are talking about requires a totalitarian world government to enact. Do your morals allow you to invade a country simply for mismanaging their resources? that's basically what you are talking about...taking control of another country's government to enact the wishes of an outside power for the good of people potentially on the other side of the planet. For us that would mean a huge reduction in comforts and access to technology...for much of the rest of the world they likely would not be able to eat. I don't see any solution to any of this - do you?

[Reacker]

I don't know why you're under the impression that the only way to solve this problem is with military force. It also doesn't need a totalitarian world government. The carbon tax idea that he's talking about fix many of our issues in the first world through causing carbon releasing energy sources to become significantly more expensive while not requiring dictatorial control to do it. A smart populace that realizes that global warming is an actual problem will vote for carbon taxes considering the downsides of doing nothing is extinction. That's the "regulation and democracy" he's talking about. The developed world is using by far the biggest proportion of energy so right there a lot of our problem is solved that way. The author is also claiming that a carbon tax is economically beneficial, though I haven't done much research into that and even if the economic effect is detrimental it still wouldn't matter because again, the downside of doing nothing is extinction. 

 

The developing world can also institute a carbon tax. Though many developing nations are real crap holes with thoroughly corrupt or outright despotic governments, there are others with rational leaders who recognize the issue or who could at least be pressured into it if we throw enough money at them. We can subsidize this where necessary. Countries that do nothing about the situation can be embargoed by the rest of the world. Thanks to globalism no country of any significance can stand on its own. 

 

None of this will be easy or cheap, but it can work without needing to invade other countries or subvert their governments. 

 

> Do your morals allow you to invade a country simply for mismanaging their resources? that's basically what you are talking about...taking control of another country's government to enact the wishes of an outside power for the good of people potentially on the other side of the planet.

 

 

I don't think that you really understand the magnitude of the problem. We are talking about humanity going extinct....there's not much I wouldn't recommend doing if it was necessary to prevent extinction. This isn't some colonial jaunt where we're over throwing a few governments so we can suck their nations dry of resources like the in colonial period, this is extinction we're talking about. If necessary, though it does not appear to be, I'm fully in support of doing whatever is needed to prevent extinction. Even totalitarianism is better than extinction, because being alive in unpleasant conditions with a hope of eventually improving our situation is better than not being alive at all. Rather a war that kills a few billion people than to do nothing and have everyone die. Fortunately as I said, there are no indications that any violence or government take overs of any kind are necessary. We can do it with "regulation and democracy". It is at the very least a better place to start than your approach of saying, "other countries are also doing nothing so we shouldn't do anything either". 

[Subverted]

Wait...your idea is to fix climate change with carbon taxes? You are going to tell people who feel lucky when they get one square meal in a day that they need to worry about their CO₂  output? I just don't think you are thinking in terms of reality here

[Reacker]

You missed the point where I said that we can subsidize where necessary to make up for this. 

[Subverted]

How do you expect to subsidize this for some 6billion people? Like I said...you just are not thinking in terms of reality.

[Reacker]

The nice thing about the carbon tax is that the nations that tend to be extremely impoverished aren't using that much energy anyways, so not much to tax. If you're a subsistence farmer living on a half acre of ancestral farm land, the cost of energy doesn't really factor into your ability to farm your tiny plot. If you're already super poor, you probably don't even have constant access to energy heavy things and so the carbon tax doesn't hurt you, but it certainly helps you in the long term considering that the poorest people are the most susceptible to the effects of climate change. This means that we don't have to subsidize the lives of these people while at the same time the things that benefit us are also benefiting them. 

 

By subsidizing I'm saying that we can help poorer nations to replace their energy infrastructure with renewables that thanks to the effects of the carbon tax will become ever cheaper. It will be super expensive to do this (but within the realm of possibility), but in this manner we can reduce the carbon output from the developing world while also helping them to continue to develop. 

[Subverted]

I really don't think you understand how the world works hahaha

[Reacker]

Oh my, what an effective argument. I am defeated. Thank you for saying that while providing no explanation or evidence. I must bow to your mastery of the subject. 

 

Thank you for opening my eyes with such an insightful one line comment. I am now committed to following your approach to the subject, which is to completely ignore the problem because its hard and involves international politics. I sure that as long as I continue to ignore the problem, just as you are willing to do, it will go away. I really wish you'd said what you just said earlier. Such a brilliant refutation of everything we just discussed would have really saved me a lot of time in thinking and writing. 

Edited by Reacker, July 24 2016 - 6:40 PM.

[Canadian anter]

If subverted was me, he'd say "your welcome"

[Kingjay]

I agree with sub with one thing.Our population is really big and millions of people have something to do with the co2 input.I'm not saying that you can't change it I'm saying that you would have to open then eyes of millions to put a decrease on the co2 input.But I agree on carbon tax but I think if you did that on a highly industrialized country you would upset the population.But keep trying to make the earth a better place.