
How climate change is rapidly taking the planet apart - stcredzero
http://www.flassbeck-economics.com/how-climate-change-is-rapidly-taking-the-planet-apart/
======
joelg
So what can we - the average HN crowd - actually do?

Bret Victor's essay on what a technologist can do about climate is a well-
reasoned perspective targeted at people in the tech industry, and it's at
least a start. What else?

[http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange](http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange)

~~~
azeirah
Even though I admire Bret victor's work very very much, I think we as
technologists do not have much an influence over the issue by inventing.
Instead, as I myself, and nearly everybody I know is barely aware of the issue
at all, we need to make the general public aware of what is taking place
through means of media. This has become a political problem, not a technology
problem.

~~~
henrikschroder
Everyone knows, noone gives a shit, because most people can't afford to care.
It's only a small sliver of humanity - the college-educated upper-middle class
of the west - that cares, and even most of them are just socially posturing
and not actually caring.

What works is the economic argument, the best environmental choice has to
become the cheapest one, and that's something technology can do.

When solar power is cheaper than coal, coal power plants will shut down very
quickly and be replaced by solar power plants.

When electric cars are cheaper than ICE cars, noone is going to buy the
latter, and vehicle pollution will quickly disappear as well.

~~~
jwatte
And you can drive those electric cars for perhaps 10 years after that switch,
until the global food supply finally kicks the bucket. On the current course,
we are looking at global nuclear war level disruption; the only question is
"when." Estimates are between 2035 and 2070.

The problem is: once we stop, were have decades more build up that catches up.

Really, actually reading the science, I'm starting to think the Fermi paradox
is solved.

When you say "cheaper," anything we do today is cheaper than massive human
death.

~~~
taneq
At least a nuclear winter would reverse the effects of the carbon emissions...

------
mynameishere
Population control and nuclear power seem to be two things that are both
beneficial in and of themselves, and also helpful against CO2 emissions. What
else? Are solar panels a net positive yet?

But really, population control is the big one, and it's hard to talk about
because, what are you going to do? Western birthrates are already very low.
But try to convince a Zambian to not have 9 children... The usual solution is
education, but that #1 Takes a generation or two, #2 Is a gamble in the first
place, and #3 Goes hand-in-hand with expanded industrial production.

~~~
erik
Population is less of a concern than you might think. At least according to
Has Rosling: [https://vimeo.com/79878808](https://vimeo.com/79878808) (This is
long, but worth watching.)

World population is starting to plateau, with the number of children no longer
growing. What I take from the video is that the primary concerns are reducing
extreme poverty and infant mortality in Africa on one hand, which will result
in a reduced birth rate. And on the other hand, moving the most wealthy to
technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact (solar power,
electric cars, and I'm not sure what else), so that as the developing world
adopts a wealthier lifestyle there is not a proportionate increase in
environmental damage.

~~~
marcusjt
"moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental
impact" \- that's a strategy that's new to me, and initially sounds smart, as
I'd certainly rather that rich people had crazy cool low/zero-environmental-
impact toys than gas-guzzling ones! However, isn't the net environmental
impact of the 1% actually tiny compared to the activities of the 99%? So
surely it's widely penetrating / mass adoption of low/zero-environmental-
impact technologies by the 99% that will change the world?

And of course as George Monbiot said...

“(Population is) an important issue…most greens will not discuss. Is this
sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both.”

“…if we accept the UN’s projection that global population will grow by roughly
50 per cent and then stop. This means it will become 50 per cent harder to
stop runaway climate change, 50 per cent harder to feed the world, 50 per cent
harder to prevent the overuse of resources.”

“Even if there were no environmental pressures caused by population growth, we
should still support the measures required to tackle it: universal sex
education, universal access to contraceptives, better schooling and
opportunities for poor women. Stabilising or even reducing the human
population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts.”

~~~
erik
"However, isn't the net environmental impact of the 1% actually tiny compared
to the activities of the 99%"

According to the linked video, the richest billion are responsible for 50% of
global carbon emissions. The idea is that we had better have much better
technology in place as the next richest 3 billion people start to drive and
fly more over the next 50 years.

------
themartorana
I knew it was bad, but wow. Makes me rethink having kids. Oops...

By the way, this is the kind of talk that makes me want to learn a few little
somethings from doomsday preppers, stock up on guns, ammunition, water, and
food that doesn't go bad for a century or more, and buy a surplus military
subterranean missile silo to turn into a geothermal-supported bunker - because
now I have a family, and that shit changes your outlook. And I'm fine being
laughed at when nothing happens, but awful happy to be prepared when it does.

~~~
z92
Which food doesn't go bad after a decade?

~~~
themartorana
Space ice cream? I don't know I haven't done any research yet. Wine for sure.
(Might as well be drunk while we're all turning into Morlocks.)

------
1_listerine_pls
We could pollute the exosphere with reflecting particles. The sun's winds
could send these particles away into outer space after some time (which would
depend on the average particle mass). The particles could be small enough to
be harmless to satellites, yet big enough to last some time. Just an idea.

~~~
taneq
One of the best analyses I read of the original Matrix movie (before the
sequels came out) was that the whole thing (Matrix, Zion, machines, etc.) was
a virtual reality game run by humans to keep us busy until Earth's biosphere
recovered from the rodgering we're currently giving it.

------
marcoperaza
Given how politicized this has become--anyone who challenges the alarmism is
outcast from the field--I think there's good reason to be skeptical of the
rapidly escalating predictions of the consequences. I'm not saying climate
change isn't happening or that it's not driven by humans, but it's kind of
remarkable that 1C over a century has become 3.5C in two decades. And of
course, global control of all major industries is always the proposed
solution.

How about nuclear? It can power the world, it's carbon neutral, and modern
reactors are physically incapable of meltdown. It seems to be the obvious
solution, but those sounding the alarm over climate change tend to be the same
groups that oppose nuclear.

~~~
Stratoscope
> And of course, global control of all major industries is always the proposed
> solution.

That's what has troubled me when I've discussed this with people who clearly
know much more than I do about climate. The underlying assumption often seems
to be, "Since the science is unquestionable, then surely you must agree that
massive government intervention is the only way to solve the problem."

Now that's something I'm pretty skeptical of, after seeing how so many well-
intended government programs have not only failed to accomplish their goals
but have been actively harmful.

Maybe government action is what's needed here. I don't know. But I sure don't
want to assume that it's the answer.

In the eyes of some, this just makes me a skeptic and a denier.

~~~
FreeFull
I personally feel like the only way out now is some sort of active
geoengineering solution. You're not going to convince everyone across the
world to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, and I suspect that even if
you manage to do that, we have released too many gases into the atmosphere
already.

~~~
api
This for whatever reason is even more unpopular than population control and
nuclear power.

I completely agree though. Emission cuts are just not going to happen fast
enough under any even slightly politically plausible scenario. It's a fantasy.

~~~
XorNot
It also tends to actually be more expensive then any other solution (other
then doing nothing in the short term). The huge sources of SO4 or whatever you
plan to use have to actually be produced from somewhere.

~~~
api
I'm not convinced there are no good options. The problem has not been
thoroughly studied.

------
Houshalter
Why was this flagged?

~~~
psynapse
Good question. Wondering the same thing myself.

------
busterarm
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH3iwybkE-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH3iwybkE-I)

------
dschiptsov
When climate wasn't changing?

The deepest and oldest problem of human species is their over-confident rush
to interfere and "fix" vastly complex self-regulating ecosystems they do not
fully understand.

~~~
themartorana
Actually the oldest problem is humans exploiting to ruin the natural resources
around them. Sometimes we try to fix that.

------
jwatte
3.5C by 2035? That's, like, 20 years away. Plenty of time for the Mars
mission, because surely we can't solve our own problems here on earth.

What will it take to get to revolution and revolt?

~~~
throwaway136373
One strategy would be to keep making up bigger and bigger claims, trying to
scare people into action.

~~~
enraged_camel
I love all you silly people who make alt accounts just to post unpopular
comments. Like, what are you so afraid of? It's just karma.

~~~
throwaway136373
Don't care about karma, I care about my career. I've seen several careers
short circuited because they didn't tow the complete liberal orthodox line.
Welcome to SF.

~~~
jwatte
So, first, it's "toe the line," and second, toeing the line means stretching
outside the defined limit. You may want to edit your post to make a coherent
statement.

~~~
greenyoda
No, it means staying _inside_ a defined limit (i.e., standing behind the
metaphorical line):

 _" Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning ... to conform to a rule
or standard ..._

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

------
alfon
When my high-functioning aspergers friend was 'deeply concerned' about the
ESAS methane some months back, the actual models not taking into account
positive feedback loops, and how there was a very high likelihood of us as a
species going extinct in a mere decade, and given how much I trust his
criteria, I knew something wasn't going well. This article pretty much sums up
what he was telling me.

