
The oil and gas we have already tapped will take us past 1.5°C - anexprogrammer
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106758-the-oil-and-gas-we-have-already-tapped-will-take-us-past-1-5c/
======
voidz
Probably going to get slammed for saying this, especially in a time where
downvoters decide for the most part what is allowed and what isn't, but here
goes anyway: even though it affects many things, I simply do not care one iota
when people talk about rising temperatures and melting ice caps. Why? Because
to me it feels like "just stuff that can happen". And I'm insignificant too,
unlike these big corporations and factories that cause most of these problems
without caring about anything but how to avoid paying taxes and so on.

I'm not a guy who throws random stuff out on the street. I do use my car
sparingly because of emissions and I do donate a lot to animal and
environmental protection funds. So like every other healthy person I do care
about nature, and it breaks my heart to hear about rain forests being cut or
burned down, whales and dolphins being killed, and seals being clubbed to
death. I eat to live, not live to eat, and I am protective of my environment.

But whenever I read stories about stuff like rising temperatures, I just could
not care less. They're just stories in my mind, with a lot of political,
societal and economic interests, that make sure you will never really know the
truth at all, and they play on guilt and blame. So I became totally uncaring
about rising temperatures and all that stuff as a result.

~~~
oarsinsync
That sounds a really long way of saying "I am apathetic to the problem" (or
blunter still, "I don't care"), which while being a perfectly valid position,
doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

On the flip side, I agree with you, but that doesn't really help anything or
anyone either, except to provide some comfort that you're not alone?

~~~
barking
It's also hard to not get a little cynical when some of the people who
pontificate on the subject don't look like they are making many sacrifices.

~~~
MagnumOpus
Why? Individual action is utterly irrelevant for any global problem, and the
pontificators know it. What can help is changing the incentive structure for
the consumption of millions or billions people; i.e. carbon taxes, power plant
tax incentives, new solar/wind tech that makes it cheaper than oil.

Given 95 million barrels of oil being burned every day, it matters not an iota
if a rich guy sets fire to an entire barrel of oil - but it matters massively
whether he lobbies for a carbon tax or whether he uses his influence to spread
lies to prevent one.

As an aside, the same applies for taxes - I am not a hypocrite if I make use
of a mortgage tax deduction while at the same time arguing that it is a
nonsensical and highly destructive tax.

~~~
barking
I have celebrity environment activists in mind who regularly fly in private
jets to faraway resorts and live the high life while being ambassadors for
climate change action on the other. The context is different but Paul
Theroux's quote on Bono sums it up:

"THERE are probably more annoying things than being hectored about African
development by a wealthy Irish rock star in a cowboy hat, but I can't think of
one at the moment"

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/the-rock-stars-
bur...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/the-rock-stars-
burden.html?_r=0)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Fortunately the message can be true regardless of who says it?

~~~
barking
They choose a celebrity because they think that the little people are more
likely to listen to them.

But when the messenger has the whiff of hyprocisy about them, it's natural to
be cynical. No one likes being patronised.

------
apsec112
So much of this is the fault of oft-ignored local zoning boards. Everyone
complains that Americans don't want to give up their cars. Well, of course
they don't. In 99.9% of the US, it's illegal to live within reasonable walking
distance of your job or your grocery store, and it's illegal to build densely
enough to make public transportation practical. So of course everyone drives
everywhere, they have no other choice.

~~~
minikites
I'm not sure zoning is the issue when you take a look at Houston, a sprawling
car-centric city with very lax zoning rules.

~~~
CalRobert
Ah, but Houston has rules designed to force urban sprawl in myriad different
ways. They just refuse to call it zoning.

Case in point - my old apartment was 2 bedrooms and had no offstreet parking.
It was near a number of excellent bars with no parking. Fortunately it was
easy to walk between them! Houston has rules forcing people to live far from
said bars, and forcing both their home and the bar to have parking (which
spreads things out even without density maximums), and makes it harder to
patronize those bars without driving intoxicated.

[https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2016/04/14/sprawl-beyond-
zo...](https://urbanedge.blogs.rice.edu/2016/04/14/sprawl-beyond-zoning/)

------
goodcanadian
Yes, while the masses are starting to come around to the idea that climate
change is real, people still seem to think we can stop it. Even if we stopped
all CO2 production immediately, temperatures would still be expected to warm
for several decades. We are already in a situation where we have to choose
between "bad" and "worse."

~~~
m_mueller
I just hope there's enough ressources spent into figuring out atmospheric
engineering - we may only have one shot at this.

------
CalRobert
I can't fathom how to actually keep temperature rises to 1.5 degrees C in a
political climate where people profess concern about the environment but wail
and gnash their teeth if gas goes up by a nickel. At least, not in a world
where the people with means to purchase large amounts of fossil fuels
primarily live in democracies.

~~~
alex_duf
I wish the oil/coal/gas price would go up... That would make solar so much
more competitive and discourage people from buying combustion engines.

~~~
bwindels
I wish we would elect leaders that introduce a carbon tax.

~~~
CalRobert
Thus the democracy problem. So long as people feel they benefit more than they
suffer from over-exploitation of the common resource (in this case, the
atmosphere, which we use as a dump for our emissions), they will vote against
any such tax. Of course, it's kind of a prisoners' dilemma problem, since
country A passing a carbon tax (and reducing consumption accordingly) makes
fossil fuels cheaper for country B.

There are ways to address this, like adding import duties on products from
countries who dump their garbage in the atmosphere, but those are fairly
unpopular too since people like being able to buy cheap stuff from China.

~~~
justin66
> Thus the democracy problem. So long as people feel they benefit more than
> they suffer from over-exploitation of the common resource (in this case, the
> atmosphere, which we use as a dump for our emissions), they will vote
> against any such tax.

We don't actually get to vote for individual taxes. The world would be an
interesting, and quite different, place if you provided the voter with an
accounting summary and asked them to choose line items, etc. etc. People
currently have little idea how their money is spent and little say in how to
change it.

~~~
CalRobert
But people do vote on particular pet issues like a carbon tax. Grey Davis was
crucified politically by Schwarzenegger for a supposed increase in the "car
tax" when in fact he was letting a previous discount on the vehicle
registration fee lapse due to the state's serious budgetary issues.

The candidate who says "we need to increase the cost of fossil fuels so you
use less of them.." won't even have an audience listening for the second part
- "...to save the planet from pretty much boiling to death and ending
civilization as we know it". Though, cynic that I am, I worry that most
drivers would prefer billions dying to paying more for fuel. Maybe that's just
because I spent too much of my life in southern California, though.

Gas prices are one of those issues people vote on emotionally rather than
logically. While I'm not crazy about his approach to personal finance, I'm
always reminded of something Dave Ramsey said (I had a coworker years ago who
listened to him on the radio). "You guys complained about gas to no end when
it was expensive, but now that we're at a buck a gallon do you feel rich?" The
point being that the importance of fuel prices are overestimated in the
average person's budget.

~~~
justin66
Good points about gas prices. It's also silly the way people assume oil prices
are all a matter of government policy, as opposed to the business cycle. So
much about being perceived as a successful politician at the national level is
about entering at the right moment, when the economy is on the upswing, or
about to be.

> But people do vote on particular pet issues like a carbon tax.

California's rather unusual. At the national level, which is what matters
most, we don't do taxation by referendum. I'm not advocating that, either. The
current system would work fine if people put a little more effort into
understanding the budget and pressing their candidates to form positions.

> The candidate who says "we need to increase the cost of fossil fuels so you
> use less of them.." won't even have an audience listening for the second
> part - "...to save the planet from pretty much boiling to death and ending
> civilization as we know it".

Well, they do have something of an audience, but that audience is somewhat
diminished by the brain-damaged nature of the American public when it comes to
understanding science. But it's not as if messages of self-sacrifice for the
common good _always_ go unheard.

------
JustUhThought
One major perspective this and similar articles do not consider is all the non
energy uses of coal and petroleum. Burning petroleum for ebergy is hardly it's
only use. Look around you at all the plastics. Even coal has great promise as
a building material. Think carbon fiber and, well all the different
permutations of materials that carbon rich ore can be made into.

~~~
mkj
Pretty sure just burning it is an order of magnitude more than other uses.
Coal for building sounds exciting though?

~~~
JustUhThought
No doubt it is now. I was speaking as to future uses.

------
JoeAltmaier
And here we are poised on the threshold of a whole new fossil fuel technology:
Methane Hydrate. Centuries of reserves, simpler to harvest, and here's the
kicker: more dangerous if it escapes unburned than if its burned! So spills
will be directly catastrophic to the atmosphere.

