
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II - infodocket
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
======
bulatb
The very best thing you can do on climate change, right now, for free, is stop
suggesting people "do their part" by flying less or eating less or making any
other kind of individual sacrifice. Erase that proposition from your brain and
never mention it again.

Climate change is a collective action problem. It can't be solved by voluntary
sacrifice or any other kind of uncoordinated action. Suggesting that it can is
harmful in two ways:

1\. It puts the focus on solutions that don't work and won't even help.

2\. Framing it in terms of sacrifice—which, again, won't even work—makes
people less inclined to help in ways that _might_ work, like lobbying for more
effective policy.

"Eat your vegetables" is not the answer. People won't—no matter what. You
might, your friends might, but _people_ won't, and that's what matters.

Deny this fact at everyone's peril.

~~~
patientplatypus
Counterpoint:

Switching from an omnivorous to vegetarian diet could reduce a person's carbon
footprint by about 30 percent, says Martin Heller, an engineer at the Center
for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan.

[https://www.popsci.com/vegetarian-environment-
health](https://www.popsci.com/vegetarian-environment-health) (I've picked
this as the first hit on google, but if you want to find other sources go for
it).

The point about vegetarianism is that eating meat is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
inefficient that climate change _won 't be solved until_ we _ALL_ stop eating
meat (or at least the majority of the planet).

Yes, there are corporate plutocrats that are destroying the planet. No, that
does not let you off the hook. If you see a collective action problem and
decide that, since it's hard, and other people suck, you don't have to
participate, then you're just as much a part of the problem as the sucky
people.

~~~
bulatb
Imagine your neighbor's house is on fire. You run outside and see him throwing
dirt on his porch with his kid's plastic shovel. You gawk at this decision for
a second, then run back inside and call the fire department.

When you come back out and shout the fire truck is coming, he yells at you for
wasting time inside instead of picking up his other tiny shovel and throwing
some dirt.

Except... the problem clearly won't be solved with twice the tiny-shovelfuls
of dirt. It needs a qualitatively different type of action.

On climate change, you have two choices:

1\. You can moralize about the sucky people who won't grab a shovel,
essentially complaining that the problem isn't of the form you'd like; or

2\. You can do the thing that's most effective.

You can also help your neighbor shovel dirt until the fire truck arrives.
That's fine, it doesn't hurt. Just understand it doesn't make a difference.

~~~
overcyn
Except there is no fire truck that’s coming. We still need to convince our
governments to take action. And how can we do that if we individually are
still throwing kindling on the flames.

------
sapote
This is a topic that has a lot of noise but there are two relatively easy to
explain things to tell people (I am discounting the usual 27% of the
population who will never be interested):

1\. There is a policy that is simple to explain and has some bipartisan
appeal: Fee and Dividend (also known as the Clean Energy Dividend). It puts an
increasing price on carbon per ton at the source (e.g., oil well, port of
entry, etc.) and distributes 100% of the proceeds to the people. That's it. No
tricks, no back-door subsidies. And because it is redistributed it's also not
a tax in the usual sense, which helps win over those who are open to climate
policy but anti-tax.

2\. Things are indeed more dire than even most climate aware folks realize.
Watch climate scientist Kevin Anderson break down the numbers -- it's sobering
how disconnected our climate discourse is from reality:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1r8OAmz9I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1r8OAmz9I)

------
ForHackernews
Wow, Table 14.1 is terrifying:

> Considering both historical and projected non-CO2 effects reduces the
> estimated cumulative CO2 budget compatible with any future warming goal, and
> in the case of 3.6°F (2°C) it reduces the aforementioned estimate to 790
> GtC. Given this more comprehensive estimate, limiting the global average
> temperature increase to below 3.6°F (2°C) means approximately 230 GtC more
> CO2 could be emitted globally. To illustrate, if one assumes future global
> emissions follow a pathway consistent with the lower scenario (RCP4.5), this
> cumulative carbon threshold is exceeded by around 2037, while under the
> higher scenario (RCP8.5) this occurs by around 2033. To limit the global
> average temperature increase to 2.7°F (1.5°C), the estimated cumulative CO2
> budget is about 590 GtC (assuming linear scaling with the compatible 3.6°F
> (2°C) budget that also considers non-CO2 effects), meaning only about 30 GtC
> more of CO2 could be emitted. Further emissions of 30 GtC (in the form of
> CO2) are projected to occur in the next few years (Table 14.1).

Dates by when cumulative carbon emissions (GtC) since 1870 reach amount
commensurate with 2.7°F (1.5°C), when accounting for non-CO2 forcings:

    
    
                    66% = 593 GtC    50% = 615 GtC    33% = 675 GtC  
         --------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- 
          RCP4.5             2019             2021             2027  
          RCP8.5             2019             2021             2025  
    

By next year, we'll (most likely) have burned through our chance of holding
climate change to 1.5°C

~~~
graeme
It's rather sobering. It's also my impression that most people who "believe"
in climate change haven't near come to grips with the scale and urgency of the
problem.

I've been thinking of writing an essay along the lines of the world being
"default dead". Basically, unless we come up with something to suck carbon
from the air and replace our energy use, I believe we're sunk.

A lot of people seem to believe that if we just stopped or "reduced" we'd
solve the problem. But if we continue for just a few years as normal, then
even a total cessation of emissions wouldn't solve our predicament.

Reducing, eliminating: these are important things. But, we're basically dead
by default, and need to do something more to actually reverse what we emitted.

~~~
CalRobert
I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying how important it is to
maximize your 401k, etc. and all I could think was "but even I have money it
won't effing mean anything when billions of people are starving and you need
to defend any means to produce food with force".

But hey, you know, reusable grocery bags and telecommuting 1 day a week should
do it. I guess.

It's like we found the asteroid headed for Earth and decided to pretend it
doesn't exist.

~~~
ramblerouser
Or some rich and powerful people decided to tell you a metior was about to
pummel the Earth and you better accept a reduced standard of living while they
fly to and from climate conferences in their private jets.

If your political beliefs tell you to not save for your retirement because the
apocalypse is coming, that should be a serious red flag.

~~~
CptFribble
It's quite clear that if climate change is real and a pressing concern, the
people flying around the world trying to stop it would not be major drivers of
the problem.

Unfortunately for humans, all the evidence seems to indicate strongly that
climate change is more than a conspiracy to get a few people marginal relative
wealth increases. Especially since it seems the ones trying to convince the
world to change haven't been very successful.

Also, I'm pretty sure the GP wasn't saying "I shouldn't save because
politics," but rather, "A 401k sounds great, but if everyone's starving and
the world is in chaos, what's the point?"

~~~
ramblerouser
>people flying around the world trying to stop it would not be major drivers
of the problem.

Thats missing the point. The fact that these people arent willing to sacrifice
the slightest convenience for the planet strongly suggests they dont actually
believe what they are saying. Obviously no one person can ruin the planet.

And: >"A 401k sounds great, but if everyone's starving and the world is in
chaos, what's the point?" Is just a nicer way to say: >"I shouldn't save
because the apocalypse is coming"

>marginal relative wealth increases

Understatement of the century. >Former vice president Al Gore had a net worth
of about $1.7 million at the turn of the century and 13 years later, his
wealth has grown to more than $200 million.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320452/Al-Gore-
Rom...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320452/Al-Gore-Romney-Rich-
grew-net-worth-200m-decade.html)

~~~
graeme
The article says Gore made his money in business, by starting a TV network and
from stock options earned while sitting on Apple's board. The options were
from before the massive rise in Apple's stock.

You implied Gore made his money from climate activism, but your own source
contradicts you. The options are:

1\. You have such confirmation bias that you don't even read articles you post
as evidence, or 2\. You know you're arguing in bad faith, but you hope to
persuade people who don't read the link

I'm sure Al Gore has made _some_ money from climate activism, but the vast
bulk of his fortune came from elsewhere. So the comment you were replying to
was accurate in describing it as a marginal increase due to activism.

~~~
ramblerouser
Here's the first hit from a web search for "al gore solyndra"

[https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1961299](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1961299)

Tldr; The Washington Post attributes most of Al Gore's net worth to
investments in taxpayer subsidized climate startups.

There certainly are bad faith people on hackernews, i just hope you yourself
arent one of them lol.

------
tejohnso
Keep in mind that projections are typically underestimated and don't take into
account potential tipping points. I encourage everyone to read the chapter on
Potential Surprises. [1]

Meanwhile, arctic sea ice is disappearing [2] and I didn't see any mention of
latent heat or phase change energy of the arctic waters. Once the ice is gone,
we're done.

[1]
[https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/)

[2]
[https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/](https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/11/)

------
tzs
Don't expect much action on this at the Federal level. Here's the President's
recent climate assessment: "Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL
RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?" [1]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10654002541519544...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065400254151954432)

Edit: this seems to be a controversial comment. It is getting a lot of down
votes and a lot of up votes. I'm a bit confused by this. The report is a US
government report, largely prepared by agencies that are under the Executive
branch, and says that climate change is a big and growing problem.

It is the Executive branch that will handle any Federal action in response to
this. The President is the head of the Executive, and will largely determine
how the Federal government responds, either directly by executive orders and
by setting White House policy, or indirectly through the President's choices
of heads of the agencies.

That the President a mere two days before the report was released (and almost
certainly having been told well in advance what was going to be in report) is
implying that climate change is not happening is on-topic and relevant.

~~~
ForrestN
I will explain my upvote: the single greatest enemy of solving Climate change,
literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. If you imagine a
world in which the Republican Party does not have the ability to affect U.S.
policy, you can imagine a world in which a) we are already deep into U.S.
efforts to lead the way on preventing large rises and b) where the terms of
the debate about where to go from here are very different. Right now,
Republicans control the government, so you are correct that we should not
expect much change at the federal level before 2020 unless something radical
and highly unlikely happens.

I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I think it's important to say
this clearly: anyone who believes that global warming is real, that science is
a rational basis for knowledge, and wants humanity to address warming as soon
as possible, is in profound, fundamental conflict with the Republican Party
about the most important crisis of our time.

The significance of this report is to convey the gravity of the crisis and to
raise a sense of emergency among the public. If the report succeeds, it will
be generating the political will necessary to strip Republicans of power and
force through a science-based policy.

~~~
whatshisface
I imagine it goes something like this:

"Wow, that really seems to be a problem. Wait, that's _me_ they're mad at? And
all my enemies are the ones baying for blood? They're probably lying, they are
the other team after all. Nevermind."

I didn't downvote, but unless you have a plan for wiping out half the
electorate you'll have to work with the other party. Activating everyone's
mental immune systems with a nice pathogen-like protien coat of enemy rhetoric
is not a good way to do it. It's like stirring peanut butter into the vat at
an antihistamine factory.

~~~
ForrestN
1) I think that when one of two parties is condemning the world to grave harm
on the basis of corruption, graft and ignorance, it's worth explicitly calling
that out as a bad thing irrespective of how that party responds.

2) The Republican Party doesn't represent the will of half the electorate at a
national level—they received a minority share of the vote in the last
presidential, house and senate elections, and only by virtue of the
antiquated, undemocratic, and intentionally manipulated system we use do
Republicans hang on to power. In a modern democracy with the electorate we
have, we wouldn't be in this situation. No plan for "wiping out" millions of
people needed.

3) I see the challenge facing us differently. We have to galvanize and
activate the political energy and force of people who want the world to be
safe and healthy as much as possible in order to forcibly extract concessions
on the part of the ruling minority and set the stage for the reclamation of
the government. If the large majority that support solving this crisis were
mobilized, this would create enormous pressure for things to change.

To put it your way, unless you have a plan for changing the minds of millions
of Republicans in the face of decades of increased polarization, a multi-
billion-dollar propaganda apparatus working in concert with the president, and
a near-endless supply of money from very rich corporations who benefit from
our current paralysis, you'll have to settle for applying as much pressure on
Republicans as we can.

~~~
ams6110
Why didn't your party fix all this when they ran the executive branch for the
previous two terms, and the Senate for 6 of those years?

~~~
torpfactory
I’m sure you’re aware that it typically requires both houses of the
legislature to pass an meaningful legislation. No?

~~~
ForrestN
Exactly!

------
foobar2020
Chapter 2 has a plot of our understanding of the impact of all natural and
human causes on the change in temperature:
[https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png](https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png)

It's pretty clear (according to the models) that the human created aerosols
combat a fair chunk of the increase caused by carbon emissions (around 0.7 deg
C at the moment, which is substantial; we'd have already been around 2 deg C
without it). Is deliberately increasing the amount of aerosols in the
atmosphere a viable path forward? Is this economically feasible and safe? Can
this be used to bring us back to the pre-industrial temperature levels?

~~~
usaar333
There's lots of studies suggesting you can do this at low cost. There are
issues, from not solving some problems at all (ocean acidification) to
creating others (localized rainfall reduction).

My own thoughts are that we _should_ be exploring doing this as a secondary
backstop (it has pretty high ROI), while aggressively cutting emissions as
well.

[https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-
coo...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-may-not-cool-the-
oceans-study-says)

~~~
graeme
In my view, this could be dangerous if we do it before we are on the way to
eliminating carbon via an alternative. If we get a symptom reduction via
aerosols, we might just burn everything we can, and have some terrible effects
on the oceans.

We might have to do it anyway, but I'm hoping we can hold off till we have a
replacement, so as to avoid compounding things even worse than they are. Human
psychology being what it is, we'll use aerosols to push off solving things.

Anyone know the expected outcome of a seriously acid ocean? My assumption is
it would be civilization ending in some way, but maybe that's wrong.

------
carapace
David Blume [1] has been promoting for years the idea of small-scale alcohol
fuel production integrated into a Permaculture farm.

This is a simple, backyard technology that can be adopted incrementally. The
fuel is carbon-neutral. If you don't have land, you can join or start a
Community-Supported Agriculture co-op, for produce _and_ fuel.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume)

------
ForHackernews
> To stabilize climate at any particular temperature level, however, it is not
> enough to halt the growth in annual carbon emissions. Global net carbon
> emissions will eventually need to reach zero and negative emissions may be
> needed for a greater-than-50% chance of limiting warming below 3.6°F (2°C)
> (see also Ch. 14: Mitigation for a discussion of negative emissions).

------
carapace
Here's one reason to be hopeful that there's a (relatively) easy fix for some
of our problems.

[https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-
change...](https://climitigation.org/olivine-can-reverse-climate-change-and-
ocean-acidificaiton/)

> In this case, we are looking specifically at the rock olivine when it comes
> in contact with ocean water and the CO2 dissolved in it. What results is a
> chemical reaction that pulls carbon from the CO2 in the ocean and binds it
> in a solution that eventually settles into rock on the sea floor. Not only
> does the olivine remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but the resulting solution
> is alkaline and has a deacidifying effect on the ocean.

~~~
shawnb576
This is a hopeful direction but it sounds like the jury is out of this can
really scale to anywhere the amount we need. But it’s cheap and it helps with
the oceans so seems like it’s part of a solution matrix. Also seems lower risk
than spraying stuff into the atmosphere so I hope we can get moving on it.

------
anesmike
The other elephant in the room will be the precipitous decline in fossil fuels
in the coming decades , maybe sooner then we think and what this will do to
our society in maintaining our present complexity and more importantly food
production.

------
titojankowski
Interested in mining carbon from the air?

Check out the AirMiners index of 83+ startups at
[http://airminers.org](http://airminers.org)

Please add new companies you find, too!

~~~
jcoffland
Wait until humans figure out that air itself is a precious and limited
commodity. When the air grab starts many will die.

~~~
krapp
Not to worry, I hear the Druidians have plenty.

------
bitesociety
Terriying for us and future generations. Simplest actions we all can take: 1
stop eating meat (especially beef pork lamb) and dairy (especially cheese) 2
lower unecessary travel 3 get energy efficient appliances 4 buy less stuff 5
demand more action from govt and corporate world

------
macinjosh
I would love for all globalist climate change doomsayers to put their money
where their mouths are and stop flying across the globe in jets, driving in
cars, and eating vegetables and meat from commercial agriculture, but I am not
holding my breath.

Let's face it: The science behind climate change is likely sound, climate
change is real, and we should probably do things to address it.

What is not science is accurately predicting the future. That cannot be done.
Relying on computer models that can't possibly take into consideration every
variable that can affect the climate, to me, is a waste of time, resources,
and human lives. It is definitely not something we should base our
governmental and societal decisions on.

~~~
mikeash
What _should_ we base our governmental and societal decisions on?

~~~
Oletros
Doing nothing.

His use of "globalists" says all

