Can We Stop Climate Change While Still Living Comfortably?

[EiMitch]

just trying to figure out if you thought something like 200+ years was "recently"

Compared to 5000+ years of recorded history? Yes, that is recent. And that's without discussing human pre-history, which dates us back 200,000+ years that we know of. A century or two is recent. But enough of that. Whats your point?

 

[Tarfeather]

@Metadigital: Thanks for taking your time to post here. It's good to see some reasoned thought on this, rather than just the usual bullshit.

That being said if you think about what humanity has done to this planet in the context of the history of Earth; its nothing, its like a cold, or a small indigestion.

It's closer to one of the mass extinction events, which is no small thing at all. In fact, we've had such an effect on the planet that we're starting to call our current geological era the Anthropocene [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene].

1 - In practice, such pessimistic hand-wringing becomes an excuse to do nothing. You know this to be true.

The problem is interpreting this as pessimism. Instead, it's merely stating that a plan to alter GDP by a small percentage with the goal of not discomforting human life isn't going to cut it. Focusing entirely on global warming is also only going to perpetuate climate change in general. Let's not confuse accepting the scale of the problem with pessimism.

Well, it's realism. It is realistic to assume that humanity at this point is going to fuck itself over. All data points this way. He's not criticizing you for being pessimistic, but he's criticizing you for not being optimistic, because only an optimist could believe with any sort of certainty that we(as in the people actually having any idea about this, not the pop in general) can do anything to fix this.

What you seem to be saying is that at this point, if we want to ensure a sustainable economy for the next couple thousand years, we need to apply such drastic changes that they would be considered "extremist" within the current political system. I fully agree to that.

It's not going to happen. But I think your argument and suggestions are the more correct ones. We can try for some sort of compromise so that we might push the disaster back a bit; As the "saner" people have been doing and are still doing. Or we can demand full compliance with the goal that in a thousand years our grandchildren will have a decent place to live. Personally, I can only accept the latter, and I will not support anyone who does not have this goal. I think at this point, the best bet to work in that direction is to find out how many people share that idea, and whether we can somehow join forces to actually have an effect. I don't think it's very likely, but reading posts like Metadigital's makes me more hopeful of this.

 

[Metadigital]

Oh please, I haven't seen such a naked No True Scotsman in a long time, and I'm a fucking Scotsman. Where the hell do you think the various Green parties are getting their policies from, the fucking Ether? Who do you think are creating or inspiring groups like Take the Flour Back in the first place if not the academics and philosophers who generate and advance the various strands of environmentalist thought? We're done here, you're evidently not interested in actually engaging in the discussion.

You probably shouldn't invoke a fallacy that you don't understand. The No True Scotsman fallacy applies groups which have no formal definition - such as being a Scotsman. There's no unifying theme there. It's a granfaloon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon] to borrow Vonnegut's handy moniker.

For philosophical frameworks (say environmentalism or feminism), there are formal definitions. You can either belong to a group that is compatible with those philosophies or are can not. The Green Party doesn't follow the basic philosophical principles of environmental thought. They're a political organization that has primarily economic goals in mind (look at these new resources we can exploit for money - think of all the jobs that can be created!). Political groups often don't represent the people they claim to. This is certainly true in the US (where the Democrats claim to represent liberals despite being conservative and where Republicans claim to represent conservatives despite being an extremist group).

Finally, it's a bit ironic that you hand wave away everything I've said so far because I'm not interested in "actually engaging in the discussion", don't you think?

@Metadigital: Thanks for taking your time to post here. It's good to see some reasoned thought on this, rather than just the usual bullshit.

Thanks.

It can be frustrating because environmental thinking requires some pretty different ways of understanding the world than many people are comfortable with. As a result, talking to others (especially on the internet) about the limitations of strategies like in this article (and again, in the Green Party) ends up more often than not being incomprehensible to a lot of others. For me, being trained in geology was the start of my ability to see the world as I do now, as it forces you to think of time on a geologic scale rather than just within my own lifetime. That's one of the first major stumbling blocks, especially here in the US, where a surprising chunk of the population doesn't think the Earth even exists on a geologic timescale. Then you have to think of natural environments in terms of trophic systems [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology)] or food webs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_web]. You've got to see the world as composed of materials flowing through systems and cycles instead of as linear paths from standing reserve [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestell] to final product. It's a lot to take in. I can only hope that someone takes note of what I say or clicks on the occasional link I post to start educating themselves on the issues so they don't either fall for predatory pseudo-Environmental institutions or gain anti-environmental sentiments like the poster above, because all that will do is rush us, and many other species on the planet, into extinction far sooner than it otherwise would have.

 

[nodlimax]

"Can We Stop Climate Change"

There is one simple answer to this: NO!

Climate will always keep changing. Climate has never been the same over a longer period of time. It gets warmer and colder based on specific influence. High sun activity? Temperature goes up - more warm related "incidents". Less sun activity - temperature goes down - cold related incidents.

If one of the super vulcanos on this planet goes active again, I want to see you try stop the more than likely ice age that is going to follow.

Can we please stop with these kind of bs headlines? If you want to talk about "climate change caused by humanity", then call it what it is. Btw. the science behind the carbon dioxide related global warming is dubious at best...

 

[Ark of the Covetor]

Quick aside because I think Alex gets far too much stick over the oil stuff; the projections being used by the SNP weren't pulled out of their arse you know, they largely came from the UK government's Department of Energy and Climate Change and the oil industry itself. As it turns out of course all the predictions were wrong at least in the short term, but the perception that Alex Salmond was pushing a "land of milk & honey" vision based on ludicrously unrealistic oil predictions was essentially created out of nothing by the BBC and the OBR(you remember them, the guys who're essentially a government-sanctioned Tory thinktank ), the latter of whom's record on predicting things is...well, lets be charitable and say "not awesome".

As for the Greens and Bennett; she's better than most recent Green leaders, but sadly that's not saying a lot(I still rate Patrick Harvey of the Scottish Greens above her, but he's not devoid of drawbacks either). I'm not against redistribution of wealth in principle, but then I'm not an ideological capitalist; I do however think that there are solutions out there which are sadly being ignored because people are far too entrenched in the tribal divides - left-right, environment-industry etc etc. A prime example is redistribution via taxation; despite the fact that a policy like Land Value Rating should please both the left AND the right - by extracting a rent on ownership of land based on its unimproved value as a substitute for taxing income, you can generate enough revenue to support substantial social services, perhaps even more substantial than at present, which should please the left, and at the same time all earned wealth remains in the hands of those who generate it, and meaningful development of land is encouraged over speculation or hoarding, both of which would drive economic activity and so should please the right - but both the left and the right whinge about the policy for different reasons which are also the same reason; it's not the policy they currently advocate, and advocating the policy that fits the respective sides' narratives have become more important to them than actually achieving the end results those policies are supposed to be enabling.

That's the same issue the Greens have been struggling with; GM crops and nuclear power, properly used, would make it actually practical to achieve their supposed objectives, but because they don't feel right to environmentalists used to seeing scientists and industry as the enemy, they'd rather just shove their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF HOW ORGANIC I AM LALALA". It's fucking maddening - so many people in politics, or even just among the voting public, would rather achieve nothing in the "right" way than actually obtain their goals in the "wrong" way.

Interesting answer, I think the OBR comment is a bit harsh, it is an independent body, there's no doubt Alec picked the most optimistic predictions he could find, I guess not unexpectedly. Also he didn't rely on the Department of Energy and Climate Change figures he compiled his own, I seem to remember? The DoE's were "gloomy" according to the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/alex-salmond-scotland-oil-boom

As you say, it's hard really to judge to some extent, as you say no one predicted the current low price for oil, pretty funny googling around and seeing pretty much everyone got it wrong!

Fully agree with the nuclear and GM comment, I know what you mean about politic inertia rather than actually doing something. I struggle with auto "shut down" myself on many topics, only as I get older I force myself to at least listen

He did compile his own, or rather he worked with a panel of economists to compile it, but it did include the DoE&C figures as part of a composite with industry figures. The result was actually pretty much in the middle, a little higher than the median because the OBR's oil forecasts were an outlier relative to the others, but nowhere near as high as some of the oil industry bodies were predicting. Salmond trained as an oil economist remember, and whether you like him or not(I much prefer Nicola myself) he was a canny git, he knew not to pick the best estimate from those already available or he'd get slaughtered by the press - of course it seems he didn't count on them just running that narrative regardless. Frankly I think that was the biggest mistake the Yes campaign and the SNP made in the referendum campaign; they totally failed to predict the entire media, even the supposedly-anti-establishment and supposedly-impartial aspects of it, throwing their weight four-square behind the British State. I think they honestly thought they'd have the Guardian and the Sun on-side by the last few months and that the BBC would have been much less partisan than turned out to be the case.

I like that phrase, political inertia, I might pinch that If you struggle not to switch off for politics in general, spare a thought for us Scots, we have to deal with the mumbling bumbling idiocy of the Labour party's local branch office - listening to Margaret Curran or Jimmy Murphy prevaricate and dissemble for five minutes will have you reaching for the sleeping pills to end it all.

Oh please, I haven't seen such a naked No True Scotsman in a long time, and I'm a fucking Scotsman. Where the hell do you think the various Green parties are getting their policies from, the fucking Ether? Who do you think are creating or inspiring groups like Take the Flour Back in the first place if not the academics and philosophers who generate and advance the various strands of environmentalist thought? We're done here, you're evidently not interested in actually engaging in the discussion.

You probably shouldn't invoke a fallacy that you don't understand. The No True Scotsman fallacy applies groups which have no formal definition - such as being a Scotsman. There's no unifying theme there. It's a granfaloon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon] to borrow Vonnegut's handy moniker.

For philosophical frameworks (say environmentalism or feminism), there are formal definitions. You can either belong to a group that is compatible with those philosophies or are can not. The Green Party doesn't follow the basic philosophical principles of environmental thought. They're a political organization that has primarily economic goals in mind (look at these new resources we can exploit for money - think of all the jobs that can be created!). Political groups often don't represent the people they claim to. This is certainly true in the US (where the Democrats claim to represent liberals despite being conservative and where Republicans claim to represent conservatives despite being an extremist group).

What on earth are you on about? You're literally No True Scotsmanning your own No True Scotsman, fallacy-ception, crikey.

I don't get how you can be so obtuse as to claim that a political party founded with the express purpose of achieving the goals of the environmental movement, which attracts the votes of pretty much every environmentalist for whom that is their primary concern and who votes, who's manifesto includes dozens of policies which are not economically-optimal because of they will advance the ideals of environmentalists, and who's politicians and staff are former/current environmentalist academics and activists are somehow not environmentalists, are focused on economics, and as a group are incompatible with environmentalist philosophy. I don't know what it's like over there in Yankland, but in Europe the various Green parties and their EU Parliament group are extensions of the environmental movement, you don't just get to say "lol politicians, they don't count" because it's convenient for your argument.

Finally, it's a bit ironic that you hand wave away everything I've said so far because I'm not interested in "actually engaging in the discussion", don't you think?

I addressed any of the points you made which even vaguely approached reality, you dismissed my response out of hand even after I posted multiple examples with links to back them up, who the fuck is hand waving here again? Get a grip pal.

 

[Grey Edwards]

It's essentially too late to change anything. We might be able to slow the change with drastic measures, but it's too late to stop it. Here, this clip sums up our chances nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXRaTnKDXA

 

[Metadigital]

...you don't just get to say "lol politicians, they don't count" because it's convenient for your argument.

You'll notice that my criticism of the posted article applies equally to Green Party politics, so I'm not really sure why you insist on lumping me (or the view I'm expressing) in with that.That would be even less consistent than what you are trying to accuse me of.

 

[spartan231490]

sounds crazy to me. For one, many experts believe that 2 degrees is in the danger zone, we need to keep the warming under 1.5 if we want to not kill the environment and ourselves. For two, he makes mo mention of the fact that increasing crop yield by 40-60% without using more land is counter-productive to the other goals. Low land farming is based on diesel fuel on every level, it requires huge amounts of diesel.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Space. You can cry foul all day but nothing will change so invest in space travel. Or wait for the thing to become a real problem then someone will step up with a plan. Or we're doomed.. either way, something happens.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

Space. You can cry foul all day but nothing will change so invest in space travel. Or wait for the thing to become a real problem then someone will step up with a plan. Or we're doomed.. either way, something happens.

There is just no way that we could move anything even close to a even a tiny portion of the human race off this planet, even if we discover some sort of miracle technology tomorrow that lets us go all star trek within the decade. Even with commonplace and advanced space travel and even with off world colonies the majority of the human race will live on this planet. And both you and I know off world colonies actually resembling anything in science fiction is too far off to be a solution to climate change now.

Space is just not a solution to climate change and the fact is we could still be done in by climate change here on earth even if spending a year as a miner on Mars before university becomes the latest fad.

 

[Nimcha]

I never really see a need to 'stop' anything. If we already influence it this much by not even trying, with a little effort we could easily make changes as we desire.

 

[Atmos Duality]

And Chernobyl was shoddy in both design and staffing.

"Shoddy" is an understatement.
What happened at Chernobyl was akin to playing Russian Roulette with an auto-loader.

IIRC, it was an electrician, not a nuke tech, that ordered ALL the critical safeties and failsafes disabled for "stress testing". They then dialed the reactor up past super-critical with the predictable result.
To this day, I have no idea why nobody stopped them.

On the design end of things: Chernobyl's reactor used graphite as a control medium instead of doped water (like everyone else). See, once ignited, graphite doesn't stop burning for a very long time (weeks if not months).
While it's very hard to get graphite to actually burn in the first place, it turns out that nuclear fire is up to the task.

The fires at ground zero, besides being a hazard on their own, contributed to lofting out activated material from what was left of the reactor core containment creating a greater range of local exposure.

When USSR workers discovered that they couldn't douse the fires, they resorted to burying everything under some absurd amount of concrete, increasing the cleanup time and thus the exposure time of the workers. (many of whom died or went on to experience complications from exposure)

Just that one detail carried major consequence due to poor design choices.

So yeah...that's all human error. It all could have been easily prevented at one point or another.

 

[Idlemessiah]

Create a food/health/price imbalance. Make bread, eggs, milk, meat and greens cheap. Make fizzy pop, crisps, chocolate and ice-cream expensive.

What the hell does junk food have to do with climate change?

Not so much about the food (although a healthier population is going to put less strain on the healthcare industry) but more about production cost and waste. i.e. All dat landfill.

 

[EiMitch]

"Can We Stop Climate Change"

There is one simple answer to this: NO!

Climate will always keep changing. Climate has never been the same over a longer period of time. It gets warmer and colder based on specific influence. High sun activity? Temperature goes up - more warm related "incidents". Less sun activity - temperature goes down - cold related incidents.

If one of the super vulcanos on this planet goes active again, I want to see you try stop the more than likely ice age that is going to follow.

Can we please stop with these kind of bs headlines? If you want to talk about "climate change caused by humanity", then call it what it is. Btw. the science behind the carbon dioxide related global warming is dubious at best...

Ah, another denying that carbon released into the air by human activity is affecting the climate.

First of all, the notion that sunspot activity is causing climate change has been debunked so many times, its ridiculous. There is no correlation between sunspot activity and the rising average global temperature.

Second, I specifically said "average global temperature," because that average is what everyone who is actually paying attention care about. Of course there are fluctuations here and there. That's why you should pay attention to the overall trend, not the momentary chaos. For at least ten thousand years, before recorded history even, the climate has been relatively stable with a fairly predictable pattern of warming and cooling. But whats happening now is not part of that pattern. We were supposed to be at least decades into an overall cooling trend right now.

Third, you only brought up super-volcanoes for purely argumentative bs. Don't equate an unlikely (and therefore unpredictable if it ever does happen) natural disaster with a predictable human-made disaster that's already in progress.

And finally, nearly all climatologists agree that human-made carbon dioxide emissions are changing the climate. They cite all sorts of peer-reviewed data to back it up, with more coming in all the time. In fact Richard Muller, a former darling of "climate skeptics," conducted a Kock brothers funded study in an attempt to disprove human-caused climate change. But instead of confirming his beliefs, Muller found that he was wrong. And its not like he simply reviewed other people's research. He did plenty of data collecting of his own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=85114404&v=kTk8Dhr15Kw&x-yt-ts=1422579428

So exactly what part of the science of climate change is dubious?

...

**watching the clock until I'm reminded why I prefer to focus on economics these days**

 

[the7ofswords]

The first world using this is not going to cut it, everyone needs to be on board. The so called first world only represents about a third of the population at most, once China and India fully joins us and the rest follow, it won't matter if we are eating raw granola in a frozen shack in the woods if they are doing things the way we were 20 years ago. Every climate summit I have seen is showing India and China basically saying "my turn." We want what you have and no rules to stop us. Politics is going to kill us, just as it always does. We have maybe 25 years before the oceans completely collapse and once that happens we are really gonna see some shit go down. I have seen no solution for this, it's pretty much inevitable I'm afraid.

4) Here's the hard one ... we need to reduce the number of humans on this planet. I'm not saying start killing people off, or anything like that, but we really need to reduce the rate of reproduction to the point that global population begins to decrease. My idea is to give every person credit for half a child. Any two people can marry or arrange in whatever fashion to have a single child. People who want no children or can't have children can sell their half-child credit on the market. In this way, people who want three kids can go buy credits from those who want none. The problem, of course, comes in how to enforce such a thing.

One crucial piece of context you both seem to miss is that developed countries have stable populations, without any kind of extreme population control program like China's. **Fry-squints at 7swords** People in poor countries tend to have alot of kids because of high child mortality rates. If someone doesn't want their legacy to die with them, they have to spam offspring to beat the odds. And they have to perpetrate child labor in order to feed them, which means scant education. The solution should be obvious enough.

1 - End the high rate of child mortality. Sane people don't want big families if given a choice.

2 - Improve wages. Seriously, does anyone earning a living wage anywhere put their kids to work and neglect their education? Speaking of which...

3 - Provide better access to reproductive education, health care, and contraceptives. When faced with the less "romantic" realities of parenthood in advance, nobody is in a hurry to have kids. Even the notorious "reality" show Teen Mom is credited with discouraging many kids from having kids of their own. So imagine the difference a real education can make.

If these basic humanitarian needs are met, the population problem will sort itself out. We're seeing population booms in developing countries because things have improved enough to reduce mortality rates, but not enough to change impoverished lifestyles.

I'm not missing that context at all. I just didn't want to turn my comment into a 20-page dissertation*. I mostly agree with you on all 3 of your points. Further, I think we need to implement world-wide healthcare and education systems. Unfortunately, the kind of push-back coming from the Ultra-Religious and Capitalistic (which, let's face it, has become a sort of religion) sectors will probably make all of that impossible. And yes, I'm fully aware that my suggestions were no better, in those terms.

The truth is, I don't see any of this getting fixed in time to save us from some pretty major devastation in the next hundred years or so?maybe even sooner. Not because we couldn't do it, but because too many entrenched interests won't allow it until it's too late.


(*That is to say, that is one of many other sub-topics that feed into my over-all ideas on this, but I didn't feel this was the space to address them all, so I went with a very brief summary.)

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Dont believe in climate change. When you get heavy snow....proof of climate change. Following year there is no snow....that proof of it also. Year after there is snow....thats proof. Science is based on facts and the science is not 100%. Im old enough to remember people going on about CFCs and green house effect. They took CFCs out of spray cans and fridges and cars got catalytic convertors (or whatever they are called) and the Ozone layers is bigger than ever. Should we change how we live and what we use? Yes. But because we should and not preaching the apocalypse.

Also when the pro climate change people send death threats to anti-climate change scientists then that makes me believe the anti group. Especially if the anti scientists have nothing to gain from their outcomes.

 

[EiMitch]

Dont believe in climate change. When you get heavy snow....proof of climate change. Following year there is no snow....that proof of it also. Year after there is snow....thats proof. Science is based on facts and the science is not 100%. Im old enough to remember people going on about CFCs and green house effect. They took CFCs out of spray cans and fridges and cars got catalytic convertors (or whatever they are called) and the Ozone layers is bigger than ever. Should we change how we live and what we use? Yes. But because we should and not preaching the apocalypse.

Also when the pro climate change people send death threats to anti-climate change scientists then that makes me believe the anti group. Especially if the anti scientists have nothing to gain from their outcomes.

First of all, the ozone layer is NOT "bigger than ever." Do your homework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

In a study organized by the American Geophysical Union, three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper-atmosphere ozone-depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to ODSs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. Some ODSs, (Ozone Depleting Substances) including CFCs, have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years. It has been estimated that the ozone layer will recover to 1980 levels near the middle of the 21st Century.

Its going to be decades yet before the damage is repaired, if we're lucky.

Second, CFCs aren't the only ODS.

The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl), and atomic bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of man-made organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 100,000 ozone molecules. ...snip...

In 2009, nitrous oxide (N2O) was the largest ozone-depleting substance (ODS) emitted through human activities.

Third, death threats? Seriously? Is this your first day on the internet or something? On any side of any hot-button topic, there are always subversive a-holes looking to ruin someone's day. Do you honestly believe climate change deniers have never made threats? Unless the subject is human nature, or whether lawmakers and/or law enforcement are dragging their feet regarding non-monetary cyber-crime, the existence of someone making death threats doesn't prove squat one way or the other.

And finally, how is winter becoming less stable and more chaotic not proof of climate change? Yearly rain and snow patters people once planned around for their water and agriculture are now gambles that are more frequently turning-up snake eyes. But these changes are somehow proof that nothing is changing? Yeah, sure. Whatever. You clearly know more about this than I, who am also old enough to remember the (well justified) panic over CFCs. And the dumbed-down talking points about greenhouse gases, which are still being talked about. CO2 anyone?

 

[EiMitch]

I'm not missing that context at all. I just didn't want to turn my comment into a 20-page dissertation*. I mostly agree with you on all 3 of your points. Further, I think we need to implement world-wide healthcare and education systems. Unfortunately, the kind of push-back coming from the Ultra-Religious and Capitalistic (which, let's face it, has become a sort of religion) sectors will probably make all of that impossible. And yes, I'm fully aware that my suggestions were no better, in those terms.

The truth is, I don't see any of this getting fixed in time to save us from some pretty major devastation in the next hundred years or so?maybe even sooner. Not because we couldn't do it, but because too many entrenched interests won't allow it until it's too late.


(*That is to say, that is one of many other sub-topics that feed into my over-all ideas on this, but I didn't feel this was the space to address them all, so I went with a very brief summary.)

Thats why, over & over throughout this thread, I've been pushing the point that renewable energy is now very cost efficient, whereas coal and oil are being heavily subsidized. These two simple truths demolish so many "capitalistic" talking points on their terms, its not even funny. On second thought, its actually hilarious. The remaining excuses to oppose solar and wind power are nakedly desperate appeals to willful ignorance, just like the opposition to net neutrality.

Fossil fuels aren't cheap anymore. Extraction and refinement are becoming increasingly expensive.

Renewable energy isn't a pipe-dream for the far future. Its ready, proven, and cost-effective now.

 

[cdemares]

I've been saying this for years (IRL), but consumption is everything. No energy source is going to keep up with us forever if we don't stop consuming increasingly more per-person and making more people and drifting apart to need individual servings of housing and heavy machines to go with them. The math doesn't look good. Efficiency can only increase so fast and most of the fuel we use is limited. You can say that X-fuel will last hundreds of years, but that number will look different after exponentially growing demand starts burning that candle at both ends.

I believe in climate change, but you don't really have to. There is no reason not to decrease consumption and pursue cleaner energies. The advantages are economic, health-related and even social and political. Being connected to the old energy industries is the only reason to oppose change. Everyone is better off, as long as you didn't have to lose a massive fortune in the transition.

We have to stop the squeezing at both ends, or one end will burn us eventually. Even if we went totally wind-solar-nuke tomorrow, we are still voracious for energy and we'd catch up. You still have to keep building-out the energy infrastructure for more energy.

I'm not saying we can't be comfortable, but we must eventually become different. Things like individual cars are probably not going to last forever. Living spaces are also going to change drastically. Not tomorrow, of course. But "Tomorrow" in the sci-fi sense.

 

[the7ofswords]

I'm not missing that context at all. I just didn't want to turn my comment into a 20-page dissertation*. I mostly agree with you on all 3 of your points. Further, I think we need to implement world-wide healthcare and education systems. Unfortunately, the kind of push-back coming from the Ultra-Religious and Capitalistic (which, let's face it, has become a sort of religion) sectors will probably make all of that impossible. And yes, I'm fully aware that my suggestions were no better, in those terms.

The truth is, I don't see any of this getting fixed in time to save us from some pretty major devastation in the next hundred years or so?maybe even sooner. Not because we couldn't do it, but because too many entrenched interests won't allow it until it's too late.


(*That is to say, that is one of many other sub-topics that feed into my over-all ideas on this, but I didn't feel this was the space to address them all, so I went with a very brief summary.)

Thats why, over & over throughout this thread, I've been pushing the point that renewable energy is now very cost efficient, whereas coal and oil are being heavily subsidized. These two simple truths demolish so many "capitalistic" talking points on their terms, its not even funny. On second thought, its actually hilarious. The remaining excuses to oppose solar and wind power are nakedly desperate appeals to willful ignorance, just like the opposition to net neutrality.

Fossil fuels aren't cheap anymore. Extraction and refinement are becoming increasingly expensive.

Renewable energy isn't a pipe-dream for the far future. Its ready, proven, and cost-effective now.

Couldn't agree more. Thanks to subsidies, people don't get a "feel" for the real direct costs of fossil fuels, much less the bigger-picture costs, like environmental degradation, health-care needs, etc. Simple, short-sighted greed is the root of the problem.