
The case for “conditional optimism” on climate change - aaronbrethorst
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/28/18156094/conditional-optimism-climate-change
======
twblalock
According to this article carbon emissions would need to go negative to keep
the temperature increase within 2 degrees. Not zero, but negative!

The populations of developed countries don't understand how much it would hurt
their quality of life if they do what it takes to solve this problem. Once
they have put up with enough pain, the unrest will make the "yellow jacket"
protests in France look routine. Who knows what kind of crazy people would get
elected by promising to stop the pain.

The "yellow jacket" protests were a response to tax increases on fuel as part
of the government's strategy to reduce emissions. They ballooned into a
general airing of grievances about inequality, economic justice, the cost of
living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment. Policies to limit emissions
in other countries would likely have the same result, because the same
sentiments exist throughout the developed world and are behind the global rise
of populism.

~~~
mlinksva
Carbon fee _and dividend_ is the obvious response to all that.

~~~
twblalock
I don’t see how it’s obvious, especially since it has never been implemented
outside of a small scheme in Canada where the dividend goes to businesses
rather than households.

~~~
mlinksva
All the more reason to implement a large scheme that returns everything to
individuals, like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act recently
introduced in the U.S. House and Senate
[https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-
co...](https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-coons-flake-
introduce-landmark-bipartisan-legislation-to-put-money-in-the-pockets-of-
working-families-by-pricing-carbon-pollution)

On how it's obvious response to:

> inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-
> establishment sentiment

On the first and third (and I guess second, depending what you mean by it),
it's clearly progressive, see
[https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-
bi...](https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bipartisan-
energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-compares-other-carbon-tax-proposals)
and on the fourth, when has there been populist backlash against sending all
citizens checks, even when it is a gimmick (as in the case of various last
minute rebates, IIRC)?

------
sunstone
There's little doubt that electric cars will displace ICE cars in an S curve
fashion. First because it's just a much better technology, second because it's
cheaper and third because it's low carbon.

The same is likely true for trucks of all familiar kinds.

It's less clear that the same holds for shipping and air travel. Air travel
for flights under 400 miles (due to much reduced maintenance costs) are likely
to electrify but the others would probably require the push of regulation.

Heat and air conditioning will very possibly electrify only because the
combined costs of wind and solar have been dropping so consistently.

On balance, it really doesn't look half bad for S curve substitution for, say,
80% of the fossil fuel industry over the next 20 years.

EDIT: a few typos

------
frabbit
'"marginal, incremental improvements in energy and carbon efficiency cannot do
the job and that what is needed is a structural transformation.” In other
words, 2 degrees requires radicalism.'

There are such huge opportunities for new jobs and industries and re-
organization of society. That coupled with prospect of reasonably predictable
doom makes me wonder what on earth goes on in so many people's minds. Why are
we not all soiling ourselves in fear? Do all the adults out there really want
to leave this world in such a mess? Especially when something can be done now.

------
anonymouzz
There are alternatives that can be deployed without reducing carbon emissions:
[https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-
aero...](https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-
global-warming-intl-scli/index.html)

We'd already be over 2*C if not the aerosols that humans released:
[https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png](https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png)

These took out much of the heat from greenhouse gasses. And in my opinion you
either buy the climate change models (which are very aware of aerosols), or
you don't. It doesn't make sense to believe that the planet will heat up more,
that it is due to humans, but aerosols are not a part of the story.

We're not as screwed as many people think.

~~~
darkpuma
Even if climate change is nonsense (it isn't) it still makes sense to get off
energy sources that are known to destroy air quality. This should be common
sense to anybody, who _likes_ smog?

This said some of the talk that I've been hearing recently has me concerned
for peoples' mental well being. I've heard numerous peers and coworkers in the
past year express belief that they would not live long enough to have
grandchildren because humanity will be extinct by then. That we have 20 years
or less of life, that the situation is doomed, etc. None of this is a healthy
mindset.

~~~
anonymouzz
Yup, climate change is real - it's evident from computing average
temperatures. No point in debating that.

I completely agree that smog is terrible and essentially kills people. My
point was the really bad consequences of warming (mass migrations from
deserted areas and subsequent refugee crises, wars over farmable land, exodus
from flooded areas) can be avoided via aerosols.

~~~
ghthor
But the source of the warming should be completely open for debate. I for one
am looking at the sun as the source, starting with the sunspot maximum event
of 1958 that sparked the US government to create Nasa.

~~~
darkpuma
Why is that a productive debate? Even if CO2 is not the source, we should
still eliminate our reliance on the combustion of fossil fuels because those
fuel sources still undeniably pollute our environment in other serious ways.
The mining and burning of coal is bad for our environment _even if_ CO2 was a
non-issue.

~~~
ghthor
For me, it's about the truth and I'm pretty tired of being dismissed because I
dont agree with the anti-human narrative that's becoming the mainstream.

