
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - markmassie
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
======
ryandvm
Bear with me, I've got a hypothetical for you.

If absolutely, rock-solid research came out that concluded that climate change
was _not_ anthropogenic, would we still be talking about reversing it? That
is, say it's all due to solar cycles or cosmic smog or whatever. And assume
that we'd still be under the specter of all the same nasty repercussions -
would we be talking about reversing it or coping with it?

And if it turns out that the global conversation would shift towards
adjustment strategies - then isn't that what we should be talking about now?

Because as a practical matter - reversing a 200 year old problem in the making
is probably about as difficult as reversing a natural phenomenon.

Of course another angle is forget the origin of the problem altogether and
focus on costs. If it's going to cost 90 trillion to undo it all or 40
trillion to adjust - what should we do? Keep in mind that at this scale, money
roughly translates to human lives (foreign aid, healthcare, education, etc).

~~~
0xffff2
>Would we be talking about reversing or coping with it?

I think the answer is an absolutely unequivocal "reversing it". Regardless of
the underlying cause, I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential
effects of global warming are anything less than catastrophic. In that light,
it only makes sense to talk about adjusting to climate change when you've
decided that preventing it in the first place is an entirely impossible task.

~~~
danielweber
I think lots of people don't think global warming would be "catastrophic."
Otherwise it would completely steamroll over any arguments against deploying
more nuclear power.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's a typical human short-sightedness/availability heuristic. People can act
if you shove the consequences directly into their faces. All it took is two
planes crashing into skyscrapers to start two wars and reinvent both
transportation and information security (for better or worse). But the climate
change goes too slow, you can't really see the consequences, you need to
_trust the specialists_ , and that's where things fall down. Doubly so if you
have democracy, since you can't really do anything important if you keep
asking everyone for opinion.

------
grondilu
In his lecture called "Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society"[1],
Freeman Dyson[2] states: "the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a
problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology".

This is based on a calculus of the yearly increase in thickness averaged over
one half of the land area of the planet, if all the carbon we're emitting by
burning fossil fuel were turned into biomass by photosynthesis.

This yearly increase is one hundredth of an inch, and illustrates the "very
favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the
soil".

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson)

------
tim333
>What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

It really depends which bit you want to reverse. The climate has changed for
billions of years in all sorts of ways. The main thing people seem to worry
about is temperature and there are artificial ways it could be lowered - SO2
and the like. Though I doubt anyone wants to go there.

I'm quite optimistic on renewables taking over eg.

"Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn't
compete" \- The Guardian
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-h...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-
has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete)

~~~
radiorental
"The climate has changed for billions of years in all sorts of ways."

Yes, but not at the current and predicted rate. Many of the ecosystems we
depend on for food will not be able to adapt quickly enough and thus collapse.

------
melling
I don't think most people believe in climate change so you'd probably need to
convince more people that it's actually a problem.

If you read the WSJ, Facebook, etc, you'll frequently see comments like the
following which had nothing to do with climate change and was about the
Rosetta probe.

[http://online.wsj.com/articles/rosetta-probe-directly-
discov...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/rosetta-probe-directly-discovers-
organic-molecules-on-comet-1416256078?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=237691475)

"Lets hope that with our last election that the US can get back to real
science instead of voodoo climate change superstitions whose purpose is to
enrich Democrats and ecowhaacos and to make poor people's energy costs go up."

The comment was upvoted a dozen times. I took the couple questions that I
answered and started my own FAQ:
[http://thespanishsite.com/faq/climate](http://thespanishsite.com/faq/climate)

~~~
dubfan
The problem is that the American left has decided to make climate change
"their issue", which leads the right wing to engage in denialist tactics. It's
important to note that both of these positions are not really based in solid
scientific understanding, but because they play to their political ideologies.
See how the left can simultaneously support climate science but oppose GMOs,
which have a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

It's frustrating too, because despite owning the issue, the left doesn't seem
interested in the economic factors that this article highlights are necessary
to take into account. The anti-corporate contingent of the left finds it
distasteful.

~~~
asgard1024
I think main driver of why people deny climate change is that the market
mechanism cannot deal with that situation. So if someone is a firm believer in
market solutions to everything, the climate change reality is a tough attack
on that personal belief.

~~~
protomyth
Sure the market can deal with it: someone creates a cheaper, easy to
transport, clean fuel ecosystem. Problem is people keep denying they need a
market solution and instead look with glee on instituting new regulations.

~~~
jberryman
> Sure the market can deal with it

Sorry, no. Much the costs of burning fossil fuels are externalized and with
climate change this is taken to the extreme.

This is what cap-and-trade was supposed to be about, but it seems that for the
modern right "market solution" is whatever preserves the status quo.

~~~
protomyth
cap-and-trade will not fix the problem with up and coming economies. cap-and-
trade is not a market solution, it just taxes the market.

you either figure out a equivalent or better cost way - or we have to deal
with war or climate engineering. I would prefer we get something that works
before we get into "the kill my neighbor to preserve what I have" mentality.

(given the voting, nope not going to respond further on this issue - no point
in "debate" if silencing is the response)

------
PeterWhittaker
Summary: Zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power
plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for
switching over within the next 40 years.

~~~
dubfan
From the article:

> Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean
> energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to
> their profit motives.

This is what I keep trying to explain to my environmentalist friends, but
there's a strong motivation in that circle to pretend the economic factor
doesn't exist and it's as simple as saying "screw you" to oil companies. It
doesn't get a good reaction.

~~~
andreasvc
If there is an impending catastrophe, the profit motive is irrelevant. The
issue is one of short term (profit) vs. long term (environment) thinking.
Saving the planet while still appealing to the profit motive would be great,
but if that's not feasible, do we just let the planet go to hell...?

~~~
ianlevesque
Depressingly, the answer appears to be yes.

------
squozzer
An equally likely solution - probably more likely, given the historical trends
of governments - would be to declare half the population as "undesirables",
force them to live a pre-industrial existence (if you allow them to live at
all), and double the energy prices for the other half, which I'm sure they'll
gladly pay given the alternative.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's a free market solution, and probably what will happen if we don't act
to change things.

~~~
none_for_me_thx
Are you joking?

------
asgard1024
I am not sure how they envision renewable energy (that just barely collects
solar power) ever competing on the market with coal and oil that's just
sitting there waiting to be picked up (that accumulated solar power for
thousands years).

It's like trying to write new commercial Unix-like operating system, and
expect profit, when the companies can already use Linux which is already there
and into which the investment has been made.

The problem is that we really need to leave that coal and oil in the ground,
and not touch it (at least for a couple hundred years), and there is no way
markets alone can do that. Even price regulations like carbon tax may not
accomplish that goal.

~~~
VLM
"with coal and oil that's just sitting there waiting to be picked up"

I've been following and investing in energy companies for a couple decades,
and that has to be the worst or funniest summary I've ever heard of their
production side. I'm sure you mean well, but... if you know where I can just
scoop economically viable quantities of coal and crude off the ground, give us
a stock tip, will ya?

~~~
asgard1024
Well, yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic. Linux also isn't entirely "free" \- you
have to spent effort configuring it and so on. But I just don't see renewables
competing with oil and coal on the fair free market.

