Global Warming: The actual charts

[Lacius]

Lets just put aside climate change for the moment. Why is it that all the toxic pollution introduced to our atmosphere on a daily basis, does not seem to create concern of its own? Obviously that is largely man made. Is it out of sight out of mind?

Greenhouse gases are arguably the only existential threat when it comes to air pollution. This shouldn't be confused with me saying that other kinds of pollution are not bad things. They are.

 

[Ratatattat]

I just don't get people. We have one Earth. That's it.

 

[kuwanger]

If you're not doing those things, then it's clear that the manmade global warming crisis is not as important to you as your dependence on the things causing it. Which makes it impossible for you to lead by example, because it looks like hypocrisy to the rest of us who aren't sure about it.

Uh, yea, no amount of me personally not using a computer is going to resolve the problem of climate change. Why? Because "lead by example" in the way you describe doesn't really work. You know early Christianity? Fundamentally it was a suicide cult. They took in members, distributed their wealth, and discourage procreation. The idea was to lead as many people into the salvation of Christianity because the final days were upon us. After less than a hundred years, that general practice obviously stopped.

Back to the original chart, there's a saying: it's not the velocity that kills you but the suddenly deceleration at the end. The issue with current climate change is how rapid it is. No doubt a lot of animals will survive, but a lot of plants/animals/etc will also go extinct because they won't find new contiguous habitat to migrate to over the next couple hundred years. The other part is, trying to reverse climate change after a certain point becomes substantially more expensive (as in, probably at least orders of magnitude), which given the current will to fund stuff to stop it now when we actually have the organization and resources makes it almost certain it won't be done.

Humans will survive. Civilization as we know it may or may not. If you don't get a shit about future generations, climate change doesn't matter.

 

[Ratatattat]

Uh, yea, no amount of me personally not using a computer is going to resolve the problem of climate change. Why? Because "lead by example" in the way you describe doesn't really work. You know early Christianity? Fundamentally it was a suicide cult. They took in members, distributed their wealth, and discourage procreation. The idea was to lead as many people into the salvation of Christianity because the final days were upon us. After less than a hundred years, that general practice obviously stopped.

Back to the original chart, there's a saying: it's not the velocity that kills you but the suddenly deceleration at the end. The issue with current climate change is how rapid it is. No doubt a lot of animals will survive, but a lot of plants/animals/etc will also go extinct because they won't find new contiguous habitat to migrate to over the next couple hundred years. The other part is, trying to reverse climate change after a certain point becomes substantially more expensive (as in, probably at least orders of magnitude), which given the current will to fund stuff to stop it now when we actually have the organization and resources makes it almost certain it won't be done.

Humans will survive. Civilization as we know it may or may not. If you don't get a shit about future generations, climate change doesn't matter.

I disagree that Humans will survive. We are simply not smart enough.

 

[ChaosEternal]

[Removed]

 

[Lacius]

Commanding someone to educate themselves is probably one of the most consistent ways to ensure that they don't. If humans were that purely logical, then we wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

There is nothing wrong with telling a person to educate oneself. It's good advice.

 

[ChaosEternal]

[Removed]

 

[Lacius]

Sure, but if your goal is to actually get someone to educate themselves then it's a piss-poor method of doing so. It smacks of condescension which makes people less receptive to your message.

See below:

Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure why I even bothered to argue such an inane point. Perhaps I've developed a bad habit of arguing for the sake of argument.

 

[ChaosEternal]

[Removed]

 

[Lacius]

Now, if you were to argue that this is completely off topic, then I would agree. Hence, I won't argue this point any further.

It's inane because it's off topic.

I don't believe this point to be inane. If you genuinely want to change people's minds, then I'd recommend you consider modifying your methods. Or in your own words, "Educate yourself."

1. Telling a person to educate oneself is not condescending.
2. A person who believes climate change is a hoax is unlikely to be swayed regardless of my methods.
3. I suggest reading up on the Backfire Effect. My use of the phrase "educate yourself" likely had no effect on the odds of changing one's mind.
4. Educate yourself.

 

[zomborg]

Climate change Is real. Too bad accurate climate models are not.

 

[notimp]

Humans will survive. Civilization as we know it may or may not. If you don't get a shit about future generations, climate change doesn't matter.

To be exact, if you dont give a shit about a generation not yet born, or people that are not in developed countries - climate change doesnt matter.

Also - baby boomers didn't give a shit about millenials or generation z (or people in the third world), when they were in power, which is still continuing on - so it kind of isn't that outrageous a thought to begin with.

That now part of them seems to be 'well into combating climate change' is basically a power fantasy up until their end. They want to be the only ones that have structural capital until they are in their graves. (Millennials will never be able to earn any.) It gives them 'better lives' and a better starting position in all arguments, also - they are many, we are few.

Thats the part you usually don't hear in public deliberations, but its also, absolutely correct, structurally.

If you want it less agressive. Millennials where set up and left hanging as a 'lost generation' unable to own, or ever decide anything. We were only ever drafted to play in virtual economies, that dont matter at all. They are useless. We were only ever needed to be pacified, or act against our interests in movements like "tsafe our planetz". But we are too small of a demographic to change that in the next 10 years.

After that baby boomers have already indoctrinated gen-z and subsequent generations, to start into life on their first recession (our third) - so they can have it better later in life (energy transition finished).

We never had. We are a lost generation. We got to see the transitioning, but hated every moment of it.

Unless we could be motivated religiously, or purely by PR - of course.

Speaking for developed western societies. If you are a bangladeshi by any chance - you've seen your wages double afair three times in the last ten years. So - entirely different story. (Globalization is kind of out to minimize differences in living standards. With that bigger governmental structures become viable.)

 

[H1B1Esquire]

I so badly wish (in a way) that "people" could understand, "It's not just you." and roll with that.
Meaning, you aren't the only organism on Earth that feels pain---everything feels "pain", but "you" have the power to change that....to a certain degree.

The problem is, words can only go so far; there are connotations of pains and denotations of "pain".
I can't really get into it, but essentially, take your head out of your ass and see what "shit" is composed of and who's making piles on piles.
Then, actually do the most agreed upon plan to deal with the mess.

 

[notimp]

Nah. Everything is perspective as well.

So for example - if you are set up to be set for your life simply by what you inherit - you are fine. What you already own gets worth more (low inflation + better investment opportunities).

If you are well into spending disposable income for useless trinkets, and whatever gets advertised on instagram - and have fun in straw fire "trend based" economies, your are fine (you will never be advertised that owning your home, or any land should be what millenials are aspiring to), because your function currently in society is to keep the economy going on empty spending. (You can't put money aside to 'safe up', because thanks to 0% interest it will become worth less over time - unless you are willing to gamble - or have bigger assets to start out with - which offer other investment opportunities).

To ease that a little credits to f.e. build your own homes are at the lowest interest rates they ever where (not double checked), but then prices near and around cities (through speculation bubbles) are so high, that you basically will not be able to afford to own anything there. So you could go back into more rural areas - where you will matter less politically - if there are strikes, or large demonstrations.

If you are well into doing something about the climate - which will never benefit you in your life, you are fine as well - because all advertising money is in that right now. Also all big structural investments will be made in those areas, they just will not 'pay out' in your lifetime. At least in Europe. US, maybe... (There is talk about a marshall plan for climate related environmental development - that Europe cant - and isn't willing to produce in the next 20 years.)

If you are into automating away peoples jobs, because you think that the future will be easier living conditions from money that is earned by machines, and that will be equally distributed in societies. You can make money for about 10 years still (automation ongoing), then you will have a third of people already out of jobs, or forced to work in gig economies. And then have a huge political struggle to establish "free money for everyone" (based on nationality).

If you are well into working a gig economy job, with no rights, no stability - but immense freedoms to be outcompeted by a guy in india - you are fine still.

If you are highly educated in any field thats still needed for any of the above - you are fine as well.

If ...

I'm not into any of that - so I'm not fine.. Just saying.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

While I agree that @Hanafuda 's position is unreasonable he does have a point.
There's never gonna be a systemic solution that does not involve personal limitation, period. Renewables are all fine and dandy, they have the capacity to fullfil our energy needs for the rest of the century, but they're likely not gonna be enough beyond that and the problems with energy storage make it even worse.
I would hope that we find a solution that gives people the personal choice what type of energy consumption they want to limit but seeing how people in this thread refuse to change their habits unless it's systemic (i.e. government mandated limitation) it's quite evident that this is not gonna work.

So I would like to know about how to deal with this.

Housing has a huge carbon footprint. High energy efficiency standards will drive up prices to the point where building affordable housing isn't economically viable. What would you propose here?

Individual transport needs to change massively. You could incentivize bicycling or taking public transport, you could disincentivize using cars but for those stubborn ones, how would you mandate change of behaviour when it comes to individual transport? Increasing prices for high emission transport options through taxation would probably work but will ultimately make the same people suffer who would also be struggling with increased housing cost.

Airtravel is a big problem. You could either increase prices by taxation to disincentivize flying or limit flights to a certain amount per person per year.

Personally I try to do my best to limit my energy consumption wherever I can. We're taking our bikes whenever we can, especially for everything in a 6 mile radius, we've gotten rid of all but one car and are coordinating when someone needs it, as an IT professional I'm trying to look for ways to optimize energy efficiency for my client's infrastructure, we're taking buses that allow us to take our bikes to get around the destination town when we go on vacation, we're looking for bike friendly hotels, I'm being active in my community to advocate for bike friendly traffic infrastructure, etc.

 

[notimp]

Housing has a huge carbon footprint. High energy efficiency standards will drive up prices to the point where building affordable housing isn't economically viable. What would you propose here?

Subsidies for the people who have already inhereted their own homes, so they can put free solar cells there which our economic sector (middle class) imports from china (every 30 years, because lifespan). Lower the energy footprint of old homes over time by retrofitting (not only solar). Which is costly and no one can afford. So that the issue is solved in terms of marketing, but not actually.

You don't need more houses, because world population figures are declining. If you have too many unused privately owned homes because of "investment portfolios" - wait until babyboomer have died (the ones with money and numbers), then have millennials in their 60's fight for living space in cities. Before that, this issue will not even be touched.

Build 'not actual houses' like Kanye does for the poor (sorry, that one is actually a joke).

Individual transport needs to change massively. You could incentivize bicycling or taking public transport, you could disincentivize using cars but for those stubborn ones, how would you mandate change of behaviour when it comes to individual transport? Increasing prices for high emission transport options through taxation would probably work but will ultimately make the same people suffer who would also be struggling with increased housing cost.

Transport as a service. Get people into self driving UBERs and apps that can offer them more viable "route stitching" with public transport, so your transporation systems will become more efficient. It just doesnt work for rural populations. So that the issue is solved in terms of marketing, but not actually.

Airtravel is a big problem. You could either increase prices by taxation to disincentivize flying or limit flights to a certain amount per person per year.

Dont do anything about that. Leave it as be. You don't even have a marketing solution for that one. Airtravel will increase by large amounts as the developing world reaches developed world status. Fake out people, that not taking actual world spanning vacations is the new cool. Sell them on VR, or something. (Virtual (as in not real) content.)

Personally I try to do my best to limit my energy consumption wherever I can.

Why?

You know, that you are only doing that to help ease the transition phase until renewable energy solutions are viable and deployed - right? So that the third, maybe forth generation after yours may have more worthwile living conditions.

You do it for 'heaven'.

Which brings us to 'pray for technical innovation' in which the babyboomers havent invested in - in their last 40 years. Then don't conjur up revolutionary tendencies - because it would make things even worse.

Here is your Sophies choice. Keep people 'poor' (not asking for economic development), by keeping them poor. Or keep them poor, by making them think, that poor is the new hip. Millennials didn't buy the second one. But Gen Z did. In Europe mostly. So I guess - as a babyboomer, don't look at your children anymore, and spend more time with your grandkids.

edit: Also - the reason, why I'm emotionally invested into this is, that I know video games. And to me the believe that it would be possible to keep people engaged in virtual worlds or economies to keep their dreams and aspirations there - even if just for one generation. Urks me to no end.

The only thing that hurts me more is people that tell me 'I try to do the best I can do in my life - to live a little less'.

And the only thing that hurts me more than that is if people ask me if 'I want to do actual marketing, so more people would think that way' - or actually pick up a concept of a worthwhile life, that we create for them in marketing or in NGOs.

I cant count the articles of "the millenials aren't able to think in just potentials anymore" I've read in my life. So this is a well established notion in the political sphere as well.

If its true, we have to see. The next climate summit is in September in New York. It is expected, that most of the US will also make "we'll be carbon neutral by 2050" pledges.

(See Merkel speech from a month ago in Harvard for example.)

 

[Hanafuda]

While I agree that @Hanafuda 's position is unreasonable he does have a point.

I thought everyone would understand it was sarcasm. Nobody's gonna agree to giving up their modern lifestyle unless forced by an authoritarianism that makes Chairman Mao look like the nicest mayor ever of the best town to live in. Even the most ardent advocates of world doom still just recycle their orange peels or something to feel good about themselves, while all the while enjoying modern fossil-fuel burning technology all day long. It doesn't matter who you elect President, it doesn't matter how strongly some reps in Congress feeeeeeeeeeel about it. China already produces almost twice as much greenhouse gases as the USA, and that's only going to get worse. Much worse. All that plastic in the ocean we hear about ... China, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. It's unreasonable to tell anyone to volunteer themselves back to a 1899 lifestyle, and it's unreasonable to hope for governments that will make it happen. God help us if they try.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

You don't need more houses, because world population figures are declining. If you have too many unused privately owned homes because of "investment portfolios" - wait until babyboomer have died (the ones with money and numbers), then have millennials in their 60's fight for living space. Before that, this issue will not even be touched.

The population isn't declining in (wealthy) countries with high energy consumption. Your statement makes no sense. We had this argument before and I showed you studies that predict the number for elderly people will be rising for at least the next 15 years. Produce something to substantiate your argument like I did then or stop it.

Transport as a service. Get people into self driving UBERs and apps that can offer them more viable "route stitching" with public transport, so your transporation systems will become more efficient. It just doesnt work for rural populations. So that the issue is solved in terms of marketing, but not actually.

This is still quite a ways off. People are falling for the classic hype cycle and haven't reached the through of disilluisonment quite yet. There will be many more things necessary to safely operate these vehicles without a driver and people are currently being oversold on what the technology can do. Current systems can be demonstrably tricked into behaving unsafely and I'm not sold on that it will be entirely fleshed out without massive investments into infrastructure.
Mercedes has had autonomous S-Class vehicles with no additional sensors compared to the regular model and recently revealed that the industry is struggling to make traffic light recognition 100% reliable while Tesla will tell you that Lidar is unneccessary.

It's just not a viable solution to bank on in the near future.

Dont do anything about that. Leave it as be. You don't even have a marketing solution for that one. Airtravel will increase by large amounts as the developing world reaches developed world status. Fake out people, that not taking actual world spanning vacations is the new cool. Sell them on VR, or something. (Virtual (as in not real) content.)

So to rephrase your argument: It's a problem, it will get worse, just ignore it and hope people will do VR? You can't be serious.

You know, that you are only doing that to help ease the transition phase until renewable energy solutions are viable and deployed - right? So that the third, maybe forth generation after yours may have more worthwile living conditions.

Renewable energy will first have to be demonstrated to be capable of satisfying the world's energy demands long term, including storage solutions and their respective efficiency.
You make the argument yourself that energy consumption will shoot up massively with developing countries reaching developed status. Solar power isn't an infinite power source as you're going to run out of surface area to plant panels at some point.

The only thing that hurts me more is people that tell me 'I try to do the best I can do in my life - to live a little less'.

I'm not living less by using a bike for transport, arguably I'm living more as I'm healthier, save money and have significantly lower risk of being injured in traffic while often saving time because I get to bypass traffic.

I'm not making the argument for people to not do what they want but as it stands the environmental damage isn't priced into a lot of energy products so the market doesn't get a chance to regulate itself. One contributing factor to the rise in SUV sales has been stagnant gas prices over the last decade, whereas rising gas prices would have likely lead to more sales of lighter and more fuel efficient cars.

I thought everyone would understand it was sarcasm. Nobody's gonna agree to giving up their modern lifestyle unless forced by an authoritarianism that makes Chairman Mao look like the nicest mayor ever of the best town to live in. Even the most ardent advocates of world doom still just recycle their orange peels or something to feel good about themselves, while all the while enjoying modern fossil-fuel burning technology all day long. It doesn't matter who you elect President, it doesn't matter how strongly some reps in Congress feeeeeeeeeeel about it. China already produces almost twice as much greenhouse gases as the USA, and that's only going to get worse. Much worse. All that plastic in the ocean we hear about ... China, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. It's unreasonable to tell anyone to volunteer themselves back to a 1899 lifestyle, and it's unreasonable to hope for governments that will make it happen. God help us if they try.

I understand that you were hyperbolic but other commenters took you quite literally. I also agree that the there's a lot of hyprocrisy surrounding the issue.
Here's a tweet that made me laugh: https://twitter.com/realmartinhagen/status/1080860209298452482?lang=de

On the left you have picture of a german green party politician she snapped on vacation in california (12h flight from Gemany), she is also using a plastic spoon. On the right you have a picture of a liberal politician who went on vacation in Germany and had a drink out of a reusable glass bottle.

 

[kuwanger]

It's unreasonable to tell anyone to volunteer themselves back to a 1899 lifestyle,

I'm pretty sure going back to an 1899 lifestyle would actually be just as bad. We've went from 1.6 billion to 7.7 billion people in ~120 years. The 1899 lifestyle of burning coal and wood for heat was terrible. Moving towards nuclear/renewables would be costly and it would undoubtedly cause a regression in standard of living, but it wouldn't be nearly equivalent to 1899 energy uses or carbon output. The other big elephant in the room is meat consumption would have to dramatically decrease.

I don't know if it'd take the likes of Mao to change society that way. I do think it'd take a substantial part of most societies (80%) to get on board to the idea, though. It's a chicken and egg problem, though. It's fueled by a desire to be warm and eat good food, some of the more basic things of society. To be actually enforced in some fashion, society itself would likely react violently to others perceived to be gluttonous. I fear that is more of the dystopian risk than some Mao character appearing. It's why so many people (me included) are really hoping that technology improves enough to compensate and why it's most frustrating when government funding (in part) is so strongly rebuffed by some as not some sort of answer.

Look at how the internet, computers, and solar panels have grown together. It's obviously not only a private nor only a public venture. There's been massive efficiency improvements. When talking of how streaming on the internet uses so much of a carbon footprint, I only think how much that streaming has offset all the other activities that would have occurred that would have released much more carbon and how those data centers as a centralized point are a lot easier to make carbon neutral than the diverse activities of millions or billions of people.

It just seems clear to me that we've taken the threat as not very serious ever since the 80s. I mean, who gives a fuck about the people of 2200? And yea, I'm obviously as guilty as anyone. :/

 

[notimp]

The population isn't declining in (wealthy) countries with high energy consumption. Your statement makes no sense. We had this argument before and I showed you studies that predict the number for elderly people will be rising for at least the next 15 years.

No - I agree on that. But houses arent built for 15 years.

Anything thats related to millennial needs - politically is not relevant. (If you understand politics as a game of numbers.) So you might do some things to ease the issue, but structurally you wont be able to do anything about it in the next 15 years. When millennials are around the age of 60, babyboomes will start to die and populations in western societies will decline. Then we can make our first political argument, that will be heard, in our lives.

Thats the quick logic (not necessarily correct - but should be.. ).

No one is investing large into anything in regards to our (?) generation specifically - that isnt related to 'keep that generation happy in fake economies' in my mind.

People try to reframe the gig economy as great.

People try to wrap their heads around universal basic income, because it might be needed.

People try to make money in automation, because it raises productivity still - but that will become a societal issue in 10-15 years, which already is kind of forecast.

And after that point, we still arent in political control for 10 more years (demographic issue).

Big Data was opened up to be a free for all, regardless of all societal problems that might result out of it - because it was seen as one of the only growth markets in the short to mid term.

My thinking goes along those lines.

I'm not living less by using a bike for transport, arguably I'm living more as I'm healthier, save money and have significantly lower risk of being injured in traffic while often saving time because I get to bypass traffic.

Yes, thats how you reframe "Bikes were always better than cars". it worked on you. It doesnt work on me. Never will. Thats the issue.

If you can currently be made to think your way - and even be all 'hyped up' about it so that you can get the thought that regression is progress out into the public - you'll have endless job opportunities in todays market.

People will literally pay you high wages, to try to change peoples behavior. You are exactly whats needed, at the current point in time.

And the joke is, that you probably think that this is that right thing to do, because of a childs smile.

Btw: Whats your fitbit score for today? (Virtual economy.)