
Promoters of Climate Anxiety - jashkenas
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/12/promoters-of-climate-anxiety.html
======
PaulHoule
A lot of the fear comes from Climate Change being the perfect storm for this
problem:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem)

It is very easy to blame the Koch Brothers or Exxon but just watch what the
Yellow Jackets do when you tell them you'll raise the price of gas.

People will try to frame it in a partisan way ("e.g. our government is now a
weak state thanks to the Koch Brothers") but it's a tough problem no matter
how you slice it. One "holdout" can always keep everyone else from making a
meaningful commitment. If the U.S. suddenly becomes "climate friendly" you
will find that now Germany or China or some other country is the blocker.

If Mike Bloomberg actually wanted to do something about climate change he'd
allocate $5 billion a year to iron fertilization and dispersing sulfur aerosol
in the upper atmosphere. Only the threat of an "independent" taking control of
the climate if the rest of us don't act can break the impasse.

~~~
jalgos_eminator
> Only the threat of an "independent" taking control of the climate if the
> rest of us don't act can break the impasse.

Honestly, I don't even think that would force the world to act. Human caused
climate change is the largest collective action problem the world has ever
seen. Its made worse by the fact that the effect lags the cause by multiple
generations (or more), so all the people who were responsible will be (or
already are) dead.

I'm not optimistic about people choosing to pay more money or significantly
change their lives (for the "worse") to help avoid future climate effects that
will only come fully to fruition after they are dead. I just don't see the
economics working out here.

~~~
topkai22
I find climate panic to be really bad because I am optimistic about being able
to significantly reduce emissions, and I think that panicked, depressed people
convinced the world is going to end it harder to get everyone to adopt the
policies needed.

Right now oil is around $59/barrel and each barrel emits .43 tons of carbon.
There are credible claims of carbon capture for $100/ton today, and that’s
without a clear payoff or scale. So that means that enacting a carbon tax that
is at parity with the cost of avoiding emissions ($100/ton) would less than
double the raw material cost of oil and still keep the price well below the
highs we saw in the 00s. The effect on consumers would be even less on a
percentage wise basis, as the tax shouldn’t effect transport, processing,
marketing, or other costs much. Not only could we manage pricing in carbon
emissions in our economy, we’ve done so in the past.

~~~
jalgos_eminator
Yeah, but the whole world has to collaborate to do this. That is the
collective action problem, and that is where my doubts lie when people say "we
can manage this".

~~~
topkai22
In my view, I’ve been surprised how much the world has already been willing to
attack the problem. More conservative fossil fuel exporting countries like the
US and Russia are resisting, but more left leaning and fuel importing
countries such as most EU members and China are riving ahead with reforms.

Perhaps as importantly very low carbon and carbon neutral energy and
transportation options are becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels right
now, without subsidies, and look to be continuing efficiency gains. It’s not
inconceivable that carbon free becomes the standard for new vehicles and power
plants purely on economic factors in the near-ish future. As that happens, the
political constituencies that benefit from carbon tax and other emissions
reducing schemes grow and you get a positive feedback loop.

I know I sound a bit Pollyanna ish, but I wasn’t always- I actually expected
the word to keep emitting because the near term human costs were high.Recent
data on the cost of these options coming down has convinced me otherwise.

------
pmiller2
> And these irresponsible folks and individuals are painting an apocalyptic
> view of the future that is completely at odds with the best science.

This, of course, raises the question: what, precisely _is_ the view of the
future painted by the best science?

I see the same news articles as everyone else, but, when applicable, I've been
hunting down the papers they're based on and at least reading the abstracts.
I've noticed some articles exaggerating or getting details wrong (such is the
state of science journalism since forever), but nothing that gives me very
much confidence that there will be a future for civilization in 60-100 years.
Am I getting the right idea, or am I reading the wrong papers?

~~~
Nasrudith
A time span of 60-100 years make for bad extrapolations period - let alone in
complex matters with feedback responsive systems. Not to mention most papers
are supposed to be narrow in focus as opposed to the big picture. Even if a
theory in itself is right it may not pan out entirely.

It is a fact that CMOS uses twice the transistors per logic gate. It is proper
to say that it would fit less processing power in an area than other doping
options. However when power dissipation is the defacto limit then even higher
power hardware will use CMOS.

------
rekabis
Talk to most any climate scientist that has a decent to good overall grip on
what is happening (including the actual actions of humanity to correct the
issue), and they are (often) well past the “stark raving terrified” stage, and
well into the “whelp, this is the end of modern civilization” stage.

Even the IPCC is quietly and unofficially gearing up for a major collapse in
the global human population by 2050. And not a blip, either, but - by their
_conservative_ estimates - a whopping 20+% _at minimum_.

Fear can motivate a lot of people. Massive changes in culture and in history
have arisen out of mass (and often unjustified) fear. I say we _need_ this
fear, and a lot more of it, too. We just need to impart it more accurately,
and less bombastically (which is great for clicks and eyeballs, but often
gives the wrong impression).

~~~
m0zg
Cliff Mass _is_ a prominent climate scientist, in case you didn't know.

~~~
solstice
Prominent for what? He comes across very strange, writing things like this:

"Global warming is a very serious issue, but most of the impacts are in the
future. There is much we can do to address global warming, both in terms of
adaptation and mitigation. There is, in fact, much reason for optimism."

(I do agree that there much we can do, but most of these things are hard
problems of collective action)

~~~
m0zg
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass)

Quote: "He has published over 120 articles in peer-reviewed scientific venues,
and served on the board of over a dozen regional and national meteorological
committees, conferences, and scientific journals."

That's as prominent as it gets. Sorry he doesn't exactly tow your particular
party line on all this.

~~~
ncmncm
Nobody tows lines at all.

~~~
vanusa
The "tow your line" bit above was a troll move. There's no need to engage it.

------
gedy
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

\- H. L. Mencken

(No I'm not a climate change denier)

------
growlist
The employment of children as tools of propaganda is a fresh low. Yet I
suspect that the 'ends justify the means' types as regards Saint Greta would
be screaming blue murder about the amorality of it all if children were being
used in support of a cause they disagreed with.

~~~
vanusa
So because Greta will be turning 17 in a few weeks -- she's to be considered a
"child" and a "tool" \-- and hence, not to be taken seriously?

Is that your point?

