
Yes, I’m Feeling Bad About Climate Change. Let’s Discuss - sarapeyton
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/yes-im-feeling-bad-about-climate-change-lets-discuss/
======
decasteve
I was in my teens in the 1990s following the Kyoto Accord with great interest.
I went through my own crisis of feeling bad, a period of bereavement in the
early 2000s, thinking we’re screwed.

People and politicians are all talk and no action — denial or cognitive
dissonance — it doesn’t matter as long as nothing gets done. The same result.

I live in a town where people fight any improvement that might make pedestrian
life better, with less reliance on a car, even over the smallest inconvenience
(e.g. another crosswalk).

I live in a small net-zero house with solar panels and an electric car.
Meanwhile the local oil company/refinery gets subsidies so it can afford to
operate.

Some of the local schools threaten kids with failing grades if they strike for
climate but missing school for sporting events is encouraged.

It’s hard not to be discouraged but I’ve come to the point of just doing what
I can and making it a priority in my own life and for my family. Not sure what
else to do.

~~~
CalRobert
If we don't fix this those grades won't matter.

------
throwaway5752
This is a really good article. It touches on the global denial, the gross
generational inequality of the status quo, and acknowledges the personal
mental health difficulty in trying to accept what the human race has done.

It's also pragmatic and talks about what's being done. Very worthwhile reading
in its entirety.

~~~
OmegaBlight
Do you think we as society are going to change fast enough to combat the
challenges we are currently facing? It seems that we are all just repeating
past mistakes in a grander scale.

~~~
toomuchtodo
No. We will only change faster once the situation becomes dire (crop failures,
heat waves you can’t fight with AC, roads and bridges failing from the heat),
and there will be much suffering due to the delay.

Prepare yourself if you can.

~~~
throwaway5752
I don't blame you for this because you're probably in the US, and probably not
in agriculture, but we are having crop failures. In the US. Massive ones. It's
not just heatwaves, but increased thunderstorm sizes (hail) and increase
rainfall during vulnerable planting and harvesting periods. A lot of this
spring was washed out in parts of the US Midwest.

Globally, it's much worse. People are showing up from Central America _because
of_ crop failures. That is climate change induced human migration. Syria
collapsed because of climate change based crop failures. The "Arab Sprint" was
in large part because of agricultural productivity issues due to climate
change. Large cities in Africa and south Asia are running out of water.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I should’ve been more specific. Crop failures where middle class Americans
start to starve. Society is nine meals away from revolution. Keep a close eye
on US grain reserves and other ag indicators.

I agree with your points that crops are already failing. It just hasn’t impact
the first world middle class yet.

~~~
kazagistar
I disagree. Most of America is already onboard; it's just being held back from
progress by its non democratic systems, a minority that clings to power, and
power systems that can spend unbounded amounts of money for short term
profits.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Can you show evidence that a majority is onboard? People are still using
petroleum like it’s going out of style, and no one wants a carbon tax.

------
watbywbarif
Sorry man, but all your hopes look pretty bad (as any other average eco-
enthusiast hopes do).

1\. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering,
huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required.
SOLUTION = Nuclear

2\. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg,
giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy
consumption). You just feel eco but price is paid in electrical infrastructure
/ power-plants / battery materials. SOLUTION=Nuclear again, then you can pack
your cheap electricity back to chemical energy and use totally clean ICE which
now has totally clean exhaustion (no impure fossil shit).

3\. Recycling (although not highlighted in article) is waste of time and
resources (mostly), moving junk around the globe so that you can feel green :D
SOLUTION=Nuclear again, just get abundant cheep electricity and burn it with
plasma torches. Don't send you garbage to China, even they don't want it.

In short, Fusion would be great, Fission will save us also. Just stop wasting
time/money/resources on other stupid ideas that change nothing and sometimes
do more harm than original solution they have replaced.

~~~
adrianN
We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. Building
nuclear plants takes ten years on average, at the current rate of building
them. If you wanted to suddenly build two or three orders of magnitude more,
you'd first have to scale up the supply chain, e.g. for pressure vessels.

There is not enough time left for a nuclear revolution.

~~~
bradlys
And there's enough time for a solar or wind revolution?

It's not like solar panels come out of thin air either. Same with windmills...

To build solar or wind at the scale we need would be quite the "revolution".
Probably even more so than nuclear because you'd have no way to store the
energy unless you went absolutely mad with lithium mining and battery
production. Which would also take years to scale.

Truth is - both options are difficult. But I think nuclear is a lot easier and
it's surprising that it meets so much resistance all the time. It's much more
like take a few square miles out of a few geographies and you get reliable
power. Versus - miles and miles of solar panels (that you may or may not be
able to fly over and are very prone to the weather of the day) or windmills
(killing all the birds and not so great sound for anyone close). And then the
battery farms you gotta spread around everywhere... Or have everyone purchase
$5,000+ in batteries that have to be replaced every X years.

~~~
adrianN
Renewables have the benefit that they provide a gradual reduction in CO2
emissions that starts basically right now, compared to not reducing emissions
at all until the reactors go online.

~~~
bradlys
I think the scale required to do batteries + solar + wind is much greater than
building nuclear power plants.

I know that nuclear power plants are a large scale event but so is creating a
factory to make PVs. Same with lithium mines. Same with refinement of that
lithium. Now we're getting into having to create lots of steel for wind
turbines too.

In my mind, you get to the end in 10 years with nuclear. With solar, you get
to production capacity to solve the issue in 10 years while slowly addressing
the problem along the way. I think the dent you'd make in 10 years while
ramping up to production capacity would at best just match increased demand.

Then you have large swaths of land that are dedicated to solar cells, wind
turbines, refineries, factories, and mines we had to use for all the lithium.
(Not that some of those won't exist for nuclear)

~~~
adrianN
IMO the situation is dire enough that we should just follow both paths
simultaneously. Build as much nuclear as we can, but also build as much
renewables as we can.

~~~
watbywbarif
I don't think that "industry capacity" is problem for nuclear option. That
problem is in peoples minds and public opinion thanks to Chernobyl and
Fukushima.

Check out how fast you can ramp up production when in need :D
[http://mathscinotes.com/2017/09/ww2-tank-production-
comparis...](http://mathscinotes.com/2017/09/ww2-tank-production-comparison-
between-combatants/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II)

Problem is that if you ramp up solar/wind you will have to ramp up
battery/hydro for backup if you want to stay clean. Nuclear does not need
batteries. If you have cheap nuclear, than you make real changes in transport
and recycling.

------
air7
I feel that a major part of the problem is misguided activism.

I'll give one example.

IMO, the solution to the energy problem is obvious: Nuclear. Nuclear is the
safest, cleanest, and most stable form of energy production we have right now.
It really works great. We should close all coal/gas plants and replace them
with nuclear plants asap. Nuclear's best feature is that it produces no carbon
to the atmosphere, and right now, that should be our main concern. But it just
so happens that it's also the safest form of energy (death per kwh) and the
most stable (active production days per year). Plus we know how to take care
of the nuclear waste. Sure it has disadvantages but the overall solution given
our situation is totally clear. [0]

The only reason this doesn't happen is the public's perception of nuclear
being "evil" and radiation being scary. So no politician despite their good
intentions can ever hope to rally the people behind them with this idea.

So we push wind and solar which are a joke. Especially given the urgency of
the times. When we site "Renewable energy" we mean bio-mass. [1]. Bio-mass is
just burn wood. It's renewable because it releases young carbon so its net-
zero emissions.

[0] [https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy) [1]
[https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy)

~~~
bryanlarsen
You were very right 10 years ago. Two things have changed in the last decade:

\- the price of wind and solar and batteries have dropped dramatically, making
them price competitive with coal and vastly cheaper than nuclear.

\- we're running out of time. We need to get these plants active within a
decade and nuclear plants take longer than that to build. We've lost the
institutional knowledge on how to build them.

------
pmichelman
I joke with Andrew Winston that after each of our conversations I require a
stiff vodka martini. The thing is we must listen. Start here. It’s as rational
a view as you will find

------
mnm1
It's hard to motivate oneself to act knowing the act is futile. I was a
vegetarian for a decade and a half. What did that achieve for climate change
(or unrelated for animal welfare)? Nothing. Because it's almost irrelevant in
the grand scheme of things especially when most greenhouse gas emissions come
from the commercial sector by far. And especially when the commercial sector
and political sector that's supposed to govern it aren't doing shit to solve
this, especially in America. As another comment points out, we've had the
solution for over half a century: nuclear. But we haven't done shit. That's
the kind of action that could really help the situation. Other countries are
doing a lot better but without collective action it's unlikely we can solve
this in time, especially with the politicians in power in the US. In the US
this is somehow a partisan issue because the people in power would prefer to
kill most human beings on earth and a million other species rather than lose a
little money on their fossile fuel investments.

On the scale in the linked article, I'm probably a four or five, but I'm also
in my late thirties and don't plan to have kids. So while I stay informed, I
don't worry. If I was younger or planned to have kids, I'd be fuming. It's
unbelievable how badly our so called leaders, especially in the US have fucked
us.

------
lcall
Late to this, but I commented in 2 recent discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20339865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20339865)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353814](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353814)

...in effect that we are not competent to solve this or our other key problems
while rejecting the creator (and basic rules like honesty and the Golden
Rule), and that none of the current events should be surprising at all, though
they are sad. These are predicted, expected, and it will get worse, but we can
be at peace and seek good things, and really, we can be OK. Linked to details
on why I think that, and more info.

------
strooper
From “Climate Change: How Do We Know” from NASA, mentioned in this article,
there is a carbon level rise and fall graph which looks almost periodic.
Perhaps the previous cases of cause and effect help us to be aware of the
present situation?

For example- Do we know what took the carbon dioxide level high during 400000
and 320000 years ago, aftermath and things that brought the level down
eventually in next few thousand years before the rise (again)?

[1] [https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

~~~
throwaway5752
Look at it overlayed with this graphic of ice ages:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Ice_Age_Te...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png)

------
bloopernova
I wish I could adequately apologize to my Stepdaughter about the climate
disaster. She's almost 20 and will have to live the majority of her life
dealing with the effects of the collective acts of human stupidity over the
past 200+ years.

I want to sponsor planting trees, but I worry that we're doing far too little,
far too late.

~~~
CalRobert
I want to find a way to spend the majority of my time fighting this. That
means paid work, unfortunately, because I'm not rich enough to retire.

Do you have any idea how I, or anyone else, can do this?

~~~
bloopernova
If you are physically able to plant trees, then find a local organization and
volunteer. Easier said than done, but I think that's something a lot of people
could do to make a definitive step towards fighting the climate disaster.

------
blondie9x
"The news is bad. That’s not negativity or pessimism; that’s a cold, hard
reading of the situation, much like an honest cancer diagnosis from a doctor."
This is how I feel. Sometimes I am down about and feel like all could be for
naught, that existence is pointless if we do not sustain the planet.

------
sleepysysadmin
The problem with climate change isn't climate change. It's because it has
become co-opted by politics. It's now impossible to discuss climate change
without becoming political.

The politics don't even agree relative to the side. Climate change has left
the spectrum of left-right wing.

~~~
kazagistar
Any change that affects society is going to be political. Why is this a
surprise? How could it be different?

~~~
tomatotomato37
The problem is that the issue itself became a _polarized_ political point,
which resulted in the people who view politics more similar to sport teams
than steering society to hardline for/against the issue without even knowing
what the issue is about. And I attribute this phenomena wholly to our big
political leaders, who go in front of a camera and devote themself fully to
solving complicated situation [x] as the cornerstone & identity of their
party, automatically causing the other party to fight against it; in this case
I believe it happened with Gore during the 2000 campaign. Without this whole
polarization effect carbon reduction could have easily been non-eventful
manner that CFCs or smog was handled in the 70s, instead you have people
denying/evangelizing the effect just because the guy on the TV with the
matching letter next to his name told them to.

This isn't just something unique to environmentalism either; I believe the
same thing happened to net neutrality when Obama made a big speech about it
when 90% of Americans didn't even care about it beforehand, and I'm hoping to
god the same thing doesn't happen to the right to repair because all
successful progress on it will grind to a halt the minute it does.

------
kebman
I read that a single cargo ship pollutes more than the entire car park of many
countries(!), and so I figured, it's just common sense to support autonomous
sail ships. I don't know how much pollution we could save, but I'm guessing
between thousands to millions of tons each year. I think this will work,
because not all cargo is time-intensive as long as there's good logistics
behind it. And I think autonomous sail ships could really make a difference
here. I really want to get into this. Can someone help me? :)

------
Bantros
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY

------
growlist
Nobody mention population.

~~~
adrianN
Do you propose reducing the population to zero over the next twenty years? If
not then you don't solve the problem.

~~~
growlist
If growth is as predicted in India and Africa (for example), then even the
most extreme penitent self-flagellation in the developed world will not make a
blind bit of difference.

~~~
adrianN
If the developed nations figure out how to live sustainably, India and Africa
can just do the same.

------
apo
I'm sure the emotions are genuine, but articles like this leave me with a
sense that those concerned are waiting for others (especially "leaders") to
make something happen. They want electric cars to be mandated so they can
continue their addiction to the automobile despite the severe environmental
effects of car culture regardless of the fuel source. They want government to
force companies to develop carbon neutral everything so that they can continue
their lives of consumption uninterrupted.

We control our own actions. Our continued individual consumption leads to CO2
emissions. It's in our power to radically reduce our own carbon footprint by
scaling back our lives. Not seeking out environmentally-friendly alternatives,
but by curbing our out-of-control consumption urges which lie at the heart of
this entire mess.

However, this requires painful, life-changing choices for many. Foregoing the
house in the burbs for a walkable/rideable commute. Shunning unsustainable
locations like Silicon Valley, even if that means reduction in income. Scaling
way back on air travel. Avoiding foods grown in rainforest whose consumption
encourages deforestation (e.g., coffee). Living far below our means, in other
words.

Stop blaming Trump. Rejoining the Paris Accords won't solve the problem. Far
more radical adjustments will be needed to prevent even the mildest effects
now being predicted.

I want to see people voicing climate change concerns recommending the only
thing that audience members can directly control - live a far simpler life and
start doing it now. Stop complaining about how impractical this option is.
This is what every "leader" is doing, from CEOs to presidents. Act - just like
you are expecting others to do so.

~~~
Will_Parker
The trouble is, making sacrifices for yourself, as a voluntary moral choice,
and just expecting other people to do the same is not going to be a successful
strategy, because you're up against human nature itself.

Any pragmatic strategy to reduce the impact of climate change must start with
international cooperation. From the point of view of the USA, this must start
with a new administration. Then, with this cooperation we could find actions
not strictly rooted in dreamy idealism, including enforcing the changes in
lifestyle you mention at scale. (Through agreements, tariffs, etc.) A real
global strategy also needs to involve some very bitter pills and compromises,
e.g. taking a fresh look at nuclear, geoengineering research, and having the
hard conversations about global population growth in emerging countries, and
what people will do in the vast regions of the world which won't be habitable
for much longer.

Any other strategy is just wishful thinking, and avoiding the cold hard facts.
And the facts on this will catch up. All the trees you can plant or the most
frugal lifestyle you are capable of will make precisely zero difference if it
isn't based on global cooperation. Andrew Yang in the most recent democratic
debate was right: a lot of the damage is already done and some of the
discussion needs to be about how we can move to higher ground.

~~~
bromuro
> making sacrifices for yourself, as a voluntary moral choice, and just
> expecting other people to do the same is not going to be a successful
> strategy, because you're up against human nature itself.

I have the opposite experience in my life so far (40yo), and I am a
perpetrator of this “strategy”.

Ask yourself, for example, why the nature of humans is that hopeless for you.
How are the humans around you? (also those in the news)

What if - before fixing earth - i fix myself? My circle of friends, of
colleagues, the family... from my most intimate partner to the whole society
it looks like a long way .

But I will be surprised how many humans can change for good, just because I
was the one changing first.

it will never stop.

------
thomasfromcdnjs
Eh surely RonaldSchleifer comment shouldn't have been killed by flagging.

------
thomasfromcdnjs
I don't even know why I have to be called a climate change denier or skeptic.
The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing to prove it. As to
say, it is not my job to disprove something that hasn't been proved.

Now obviously there is "proof" in circulation. But what is it proving? Have
any prediction targets been met at all? How much will the sea tides rise and
when? How much would have they risen given natural cycles? Even if man mad
emissions weren't affecting the temperature would a climate scientist be able
to predict the temperature 5 years from now?

Nasa has a few articles about how Earth is much greener than 40 years ago due
to global warming -> [https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/3/graphic-
warmer-...](https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/3/graphic-warmer-..).

Are we simply waiting for this new vegetation to mature and reduce carbon
emissions? Is anyone factoring in potential plant growth? Could they even
measure that? Maybe the earth knows how to naturally cycle?

As I've aged, all I have seen is men make futile predictions about everything
under the sun. The more and more variables and extrapolations added to a
problem generally leads to an exponentially bad answer. I'm sure anyone who
works in a job that does heavy spread sheet work can twist any bunch of
numbers to fit a departments desired figure.

Furthermore, the mass fervour of the world for climate change should induce
skepticism. Where is everyone getting their sources from?

Arguments such as:

"Think about the children" "Save the planet"

Are typically go to answers of people who can't make a real point.

Now it is not anyone's fault that they should act hysterical, the authority
that is trickling down all this information should be a bit more out spoken.
The media also needs to drop the term "experts" and "scientists".

I'd just like to know, in 10 years from now, if carbon emissions were at 19th
century level, what would be the temperature be? and at our current rate of
carbon emission what will the temperature be? With what degree of accuracy
will the figure hold up to? Other then reducing man made emissions, what other
planetary behaviour will also reduce carbon emissions? Can they be predicted
and have you included them in the report?

Not even going to bother with the political aspect of this all, which actually
may well be the majority of this movement. If I truely believed climate change
were a real problem for the world, as the above posted said, I would be going
after all the billion person populations first and foremost.

------
youareawesome
I've gotten a vasectomy exactly because it's clear that some of the worst
outcomes of human-created climate change are inevitable, and I recommend
anyone who cares about the environment and the well-being of their potential
children to do the same.

My only question is what to do when the world actually ends in 10 or so years.
I'm thinking of quitting my job in SF and moving to a rural area in northern
midwest far from the oceans, but I haven't been able to get my family or
friends to join me. I'm worried about the _ahem_ political affiliations of
those areas as well.

Does anybody have a good plan for what to do when the worst disasters occur?
Like food shortages?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Wouldn't diving into the world of doomsday preppers assist you in planning? (I
mean, stereotyping aside that they're all crackpots or w/e surely they'd be
useful for the literal thing they're trying to do.)

~~~
Pinckney
"Doomsday planning for less crazy folks" is pretty good:

[http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/)

~~~
youareawesome
This is great, thank you!

