
Why We Stink at Tackling Climate Change - imartin2k
http://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/why-we-stink-at-tackling-climate-change
======
diafygi
Howdy! I work fighting climate change, and I guess it's that time again for a
what-can-you-do-about-it post :)

So what can you do about it?

You can get a job fighting climate change! Solar, wind, batteries, and EVs are
now competitive against fossil-based incumbents, so now the biggest issue is
scaling them up. That means tons and tons of problem solving, which means
great software and engineering jobs and startup opportunities!

If you think about it, the switch to renewables means we need to deal with
situations where the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, yet still
keep the lights on. That means you have to build in a ton of storage and load
control and electrify as much as you can (transportation, heating, etc.). All
that new infrastructure needs to have good communication and analysis, which
means software! Something like half of the impact of the energy transition
will be done through software optimizing the deployment and operation of clean
energy assets.

I've posted about this many times[1], so please check out my previous comments
on links for finding climate impact work. It's mostly about (A) browsing
sector-specific conferences and looking at the expo and speakers' companies
for ones that interest you, and (B) showing up to energy meetups just to meet
people working in the space. If you're in the bay area, I run a calendar of
all the clean energy-related events
([https://bayareaenergyevents.com](https://bayareaenergyevents.com)), so I
encourage you to just start showing up :)

My favorite climate change joke is, "They say we won't act until it's too
late... Luckily, it's too late!"

Why not turn the fatalism and anxiety you feel into a paycheck?

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154)

~~~
lazyjones
> _Why not turn the fatalism and anxiety you feel into a paycheck?_

I don't want to sound mean, but the only anxiety I am beginning to feel lately
is that more and more people are turning to fighting a gas that all of us
exhale, some of them fanatically and violently, and they seem to ultimately
agree that we must wind down the economy to beat it. I don't want to lose
everything that gave us wealth, progress, medical breakthroughs and freedom
for the sole reason that some people are afraid of a warmer climate.

So, what do I do about it?

~~~
mrob
I think this comment is being unfairly downvoted. I believe a lot of so-called
environmentalists are actually opposed to civilization, and would prefer if
humanity reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is more "natural", and
humans are generally happier living like that, so it's not a totally
ridiculous idea. The main drawback is that it would require the deaths of
billions, but by their revealed preferences, it seems a lot of
environmentalists are actually okay with this. Why else would they oppose the
only proven solution that could bring CO2 emissions to zero in time to limit
the damage to something survivable?: nuclear power.

I think climate change is the biggest current threat to humanity, and almost
nobody is taking it as seriously as they should. Even the ongoing protests in
London are a massive under-reaction. But how many of those environmentalists
actually support a solution that isn't "wind down the economy?" Germany began
a complete shutdown their nuclear power plants in response to a reactor
containment failure in Japan that killed nobody directly, and even with the
worst case assumptions, statistically caused few hundred excess cancer deaths
at most. This is 0% of the deaths that will be caused when one of the
alternative "wind down the economy" or "uncontrolled temperature rise" plans
triggers World War 3.

~~~
lazyjones
> _I think climate change is the biggest current threat to humanity, and
> almost nobody is taking it as seriously as they should._

Here I disagree. We're trying to colonise Mars, but at the same time believe a
somewhat warmer climate is an existential threat to humanity. How is that
logical?

Climate change will not destroy humanity, civilisation, or even the planet. We
will adapt easily. Look to the 20th century for examples of actual threats to
humanity...

> _This is 0% of the deaths that will be caused when one of the alternative
> "wind down the economy" or "uncontrolled temperature rise" plans triggers
> World War 3_

Exactly, only that these aren't the only possible triggers for a WW3.

~~~
tobr
> We're trying to colonise Mars, but at the same time believe a somewhat
> warmer climate is an existential threat to humanity.

That’s an interesting non sequitur. How does the potential for colonization of
Mars say anything about how big of a threat climate change is?

~~~
lazyjones
> _That’s an interesting non sequitur._

I'll have to write it in a more straightforward manner, since it's apparently
a non sequitur if you don't understand it: if we are optimistic about living
on a planet as hostile as Mars, how can we be pessimistic about surviving a
temperature increase of a few degrees on Earth?

~~~
tobr
That is a very superficial comparison between two problems that are
fundamentally different, especially with regards to what’s at stake.

Going to Mars has no deadline, and barely any stakes. If it proves practically
unachievable, it’s a failed dream, or maybe just an indefinitely delayed
dream; no big deal. Earth is already inhabited by millions of species, and if
it becomes even one percent less hospitable, that’s an existential crisis.

~~~
lazyjones
> _Earth is already inhabited by millions of species, and if it becomes even
> one percent less hospitable, that’s an existential crisis._

No, it's not. This is just the typical scaremongering and dramatisation I'm
getting so tired of. Every populated region on Earth becomes much more than
one percent less hospitable every winter and there is no crisis, especially
not an existential one. We can cope very well with minor changes in weather
and climate and we will. Stop obsessing about climate doom scenarios, it's
silly.

~~~
tobr
> Every populated region on Earth becomes much more than one percent less
> hospitable every winter

No, winter is part of the baseline. Life has evolved to to survive during
winter, and societies have been built to handle it. We do not have ecosystem
collapses or widespread climate refugees every winter. Permanent and
unprecedented changes cause completely different problems than a few months of
winter.

------
skilled
Just watched this documentary by David Attenborough [1] the other day. It's
unfortunate that still to this day, scientists and researches have to
emphasize the phrase 'climate change'.

It's sickening to know that rainforests are being bulldozed off by their
hundreds of square kilometers every single day. And it's even more sickening
that many think 'reforestation' is going to help this cause.

Rainforests are an ecosystem with thousands of different plants and trees,
which contribute to a healthy and flourishing environment. Thinking that you
can replace this with a few different species is not the way to approach this
problem.

We really have to start looking at these issues from an individual point of
view. We have to consider the fact that it might be our individual behavior
that's going to inspire change in others.

World's Elite has proven time and time again that they do not care for the
planet, not unless there is big money involved.

[1]: [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-
arts-47988337](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47988337)

~~~
kryogen1c
You seem to be conflating two different issues.

Eliminating plant and animal diversity is dangerous for various reasons, but
has little to do with climate change.

As to deforestation as a mechanism of CO2 removal vis a vis climate change,
there are more trees now than there have ever been.

~~~
skilled
Ignorance is bliss!

~~~
simplesleeper
reforestation has been ongoing at a massive scale for quite a while now - I
drove on a motorway for days across Brazil, for example, and only saw forests
of trees lined in perfect rows by the road.

------
vages
Despite the misanthropic title, the article ends on a positive note:

> Thanks to our cultural evolution, we have cities, houses, and indoor
> plumbing. As a result, to the benefit of our health, we learned to use
> toilets. A primate with such behavioral flexibility, capable of going
> against millennia of natural selection, is nearly miraculous, yet an
> everyday event. Take heart. An originally arboreal primate species capable
> of being toilet-trained should also be capable of becoming planet-trained.
> In Aesop’s tale, remember, the tortoise triumphs. Because the hare and the
> tortoise are both part of ourselves, they can only win or lose together,
> which makes it all the more important that we get our hare-brained selves
> under control.

Personally, I find these heartening perspectives better than the pessimistic
ones. And I have found that presenting such views to less informed friends
makes them more motivated to take action and limit their consumption rather
than the doom and gloom perspective.

~~~
perfunctory
> And I have found that presenting such views to less informed friends makes
> them more motivated to take action and limit their consumption rather than
> the doom and gloom perspective.

I dunno. I for one is getting a little tired of all these optimistic endings.
It almost sounds like - hey, nothing to worry about, the problem will solve
itself. Renewables are getting cheaper and if you just skip one day a week of
eating meat then everything will be just fine.

And then you look at the PPM chart and it just keeps going up.

Social science is saying that scaring people doesn't work and I don't
understand why. Don't we have the loss aversion? [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion)

------
Yetanfou
One of the reasons people are bad at tackling something like the changing
climate is that the subject has been turned into something closely resembling
a religion and as such has gained adherents spreading the true faith and
detractors denying it, with almost no sane discussion being possible between
the two. This is a sad state of things as it leads to totally illogical
actions on both sides. Combine this with the clear and present danger from
commercial interests trying to gain from either keeping the status quo or from
selling new and often largely unproven - or even proven ineffective - ways to
'fight climate change' and the stage was set for the current situation.

This situation has occurred earlier in history, an example being the attitude
towards nuclear power. While some point at the accidents in Three Miles
Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima as examples of why nuclear power is the spawn
of Satan and should be banished from this earth, others see those same
accidents in the light of the stalled development of nuclear technology due to
the actions of those who do everything to stall those developments leading to
ancient reactors being kept on-line because their successors have been stalled
or cancelled.

------
no1youknowz
So I have a really serious question. I'm not a denier/skeptic. I just like to
look at things logically and pose questions.

Over the next 50 years these 3 things will occur:

1) Only electric vehicles on the ground, air and water

2) All meat for consumption grown in the lab, no farm animals raised

3) No coal plants

Won't this eliminate all major types of pollution?

If at this point, the planet still keeps warming? What are "they" going to
blame it on then?

It's quite easy to see this is where technology is going. But yet I never hear
anything about it. Just we have 10/12 years until we all die.

Also please don't just down vote me. I'm interested in knowing if there are
cycles in warming due to the earth or the sun. I have come across youtube
videos and articles that we are in-line for another ice age. I just wonder, if
we'll ever get to a peak warm, will it reverse and we'll start cooling
rapidly?

~~~
lazyjones
> _If at this point, the planet still keeps warming? What are "they" going to
> blame it on then?_

On living beings, most of them exhale CO2. Those who are already yelling to
have fewer children
([https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-
to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-
climate-change-have-fewer-children)) will go one step further.

~~~
DennisP
All the CO2 they exhale got the carbon from plants, which recently pulled it
from the air. Humans are carbon neutral.

~~~
lazyjones
> _All the CO2 they exhale got the carbon from plants, which recently pulled
> it from the air. Humans are carbon neutral._

This would be true AFAICT if we somehow managed to eat without any CO2
emissions. But agriculture is a huge driver of CO2 emissions and so are
logistics, electricity for cooking etc.. So while the CO2 we exhale comes from
the atmosphere through plants, animals and so on, we inevitably cause a lot of
CO2 emissions as a side-effect in the process.

------
Abishek_Muthian
Politicians, being decision makers having vested interest in denying climate
change is the epitome of corruption, because unlike other corruption; wealth
doesn't prevent themselves or their kin from getting affected in the long run.

------
mbruce
We stink at it for a few reasons - some covered by the article - and some not.
Primarily it is due to population in total and our habits of which generate
Co2. Our houses, energy expenditure on cars, planes etc are valuable to us,
and are not at all easy to change.e.g. Thing about houses designed for A/C
with lots of glass. Lifecycle is 50 years. We are over optimistic about very
large infrastructure change in wind / solar and despatchable energy replacing
other sources and aren’t very practical. Did someone mention nuclear or is
that verboten? It is also a distributed problem. If one country gets ‘ahead’
it incurs a cost penalty (unless you are one of the few with cheap hydro).
What’s the incentive? Many intuitively believe in climate change but want
someone else to pay (doesn’t work out). Who realistically can see widespread
support to cut the standard of living? So, some problems are very hard and
this is one of them. No real easy answer. This is why we stink at it. Until
the pain is far more evident.

------
fsloth
I think the actual reason is that most of the countries hardest hit (due to
concievable first order effects) have mostly very low GDP. Hence the
incumbents have very little immediate financial incentive to pull their
weight.

------
perfunctory
"Enter global heating (a better word than “warming,” which carries misleading
connotations of comfy and toasty)"

That's it. I'm gonna call it "global heating" from now on.

------
scarejunba
> What’s wrong with us? Not us Democrats, Republicans, or Americans

But really, Republicans, though.

> Earth is warming mostly due to human activity

> Republicans (Boomer/GenX/Millennial): 18/2x/36

> Democrats: 75

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/14/many-
republ...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/14/many-republican-
millennials-differ-with-older-party-members-on-climate-change-and-energy-
issues/)

------
ykevinator
Republicans in the u.s. are the biggest threat to the climate because they
don't think there's a problem.

