There's a podcast for you to have a taste for the quality of the modellers and what they are up to in the next fase. .
My 2 cents is a CO2-tax would align incentives quite painfully. All we get in return is the drama of creating an artificial pool for a unlimited 'resource'. The cost of all measures is quite affordable, on a global, long-term scale.
For an alternative, see the Big Open Network of Sustainability Assessment Information (BONSAI ; disclosure: I am chair of the board) which is trying to do similar work with open data and open science.
"The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups." https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...
Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.
Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported".
Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.
This is objectively wrong though. If they were to use the actual law for refugees, they have to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, yet they all travel onwards to the EU, to the 4th or so European country, and they do get on welfare and live off public assistance.
If they were seeking safety, they would stay in the first country, Turkey. But obviously, Turkey does not have generous free packages, so they - as you said -, search for opportunity to receive free stuff, i.e. move to far away countries where they would be eligible for welfare (public assistance).
63% non-citizen households are on welfare. This is not hardly anyone.
Note: I realize that the statistics above are concerned with the US and not the EU, but it refutes the quoted statement.
This does not necessarily apply to immigrants from other European countries migrating to the UK, for example. They are the ones searching for opportunities alone, and not safety. There are many definitions of safety, and in this case I was referring to safety in terms of fleeing from war zones, and as far as I am concerned, those European countries these people (from this example) are migrating from are not a war zone.
 Of course one could migrate to another country simply because they offer more free stuff. I do not deny that.
On the other hand, in Germany:
> In April 2018 more than half, at 55%, of the recipients of unemployment benefits had a migration background. According to the Federal Employment Agency (German: Bundesagentur für Arbeit) this was due to the migrants lacking either employable skills or knowledge of the language.
Note that they may take into account people from other European countries, too, i.e. not refugees.
> I mean, immigrants have costs too
Do immigrants who work have a cost? I could migrate to the US from a non-warzone and I believe it would not cost the US anything, but would make money off of me.
> receive free stuff
I do with people who said things like this had to live on the actual level of public assistance for a month or so. It's really not a lot. £37.75 a week in the UK, just under £2k a year, not including housing.
I agree that Turkey does not necessarily count or be perceived as safe to non-Muslim refugees. I am not sure of the percentage of such refugees either. Regarding safety, I can only assume that it is safer living in Turkey than living in an actual war zone, even if you are a non-Muslim. So since Turkey is not a war zone, if you are looking for a way out of a war zone, for safety, then you will settle down in the nearest safe place, unless of course safety is not the only criteria.
I would also like to say that Syria is safe outside of certain areas thanks to the Syrian army and Russia liberating it from the "moderate" rebels (terrorists). If I am wrong, do not hesitate to correct me.
Asylum is to protect someone from immediate harm, they do that by going to the nearest safe place, otherwise, if they want to pick and choose, unfortunately they need to apply for a visa like everyone else and likely would not be entitled to public assistance (free stuff) down that route, so it is not attractive to them. Especially considering the migrant-intent visas or dual intent visas have a high threshold for skills which they likely would not meet and would have to rely on the other visas that prohibit seeking permanent residency, so instead these people from non-war zones just go to whatever country they want, burn their fingertips, and apply for asylum in the place that gives them the most free stuff. EU knows this, hence why they are now paying said economic migrants a way back home where it was safe in the first place.
People are fleeing safe countries, to very specific countries based on their high benefits payout. Such as: being in some areas of Syria is safe, travelling to Turkey, safe, travelling all the way up the EU area to France where they were safe at all points, endangering everybody on a raft to illegally enter the UK, etc. There is no other reason than welfare. If they had family in that country, they can apply for a visa on that.
We also have to note that "immigrants" and "refugees" are not exactly the same thing, but seemingly have used it interchangeably. :/
Looks like the report in your second link is more propaganda than science.
In any case, I do not think that UK records the information in terms of non-UK and UK citizenship (or from European countries vs non-European countries), but if you can find it, please let me know.
Given the Developed countries have the money and the means, the best thing from a global CO2 standpoint would be if the Developed countries led the way on reducing their emissions.
My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.
what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :)
it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains.
also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.
This is what things like Kyoto were intended to be.
> Machinegun the boats
This is the kind of thing we executed Nazis for at Nuremberg. It's called a crime against humanity for good reason.
And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)
>Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)
The US spends $10,203 per capita on public expenditure. That's dead set with Switzerland ($10,412), not that far behind Finland ($11,858), and much higher than Canada ($7,352).
Glad I could help you become a little less ignorant :)
I'm glad for your expenses, but you're not getting your money's worth.
This has led to a spiral self-medicating with alcohol and illegal drugs and of dealing with the mentally ill through the criminal infrastructure or through rampant homelessness.
There are other drivers of course, but I believe the vast majority can be traced to the inability of the state to force treatment on those who are obviously ill.
These are obvious non-starters. It’d be rich people saying “fuck you, got mine”.
I think a lot of people view money as a way to buy stuff. That's true but they'd be better off view money as magic. Making it creates problems but on the upside: magic.
* Global programme to drastically reduce birthrate.
* Global development programme based on good governance and actual results, not just "sending money".
there should be a global program to give welfare payments for those willing to participate in a birth control program
Educating them (especially women), giving them contraceptives, etc., is the positive approach to this, in my opinion.
The issue here is to make those who have a lot of children have less children.
Giving money, and contraceptives, and free sterilisation, and education should all be done.
Edit: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affec...
> Funding of welfare mothers by HEW (Health, Education, and Welfare) covers roughy 90% of cost and doctors are likely to concur with the compulsory sterilization of welfare mothers. Threats to cease welfare occur when women are hesitant to consent.
If we don't make things happen, education by itself might take 20 years for the first results.
We need to change things very quickly. We're already very late and made things worse by improving survival rates without enforcing birth control.
Or to put it in an other word, if we can get the full population of earth to stop eating meat it will do more good than getting the few percentages of the population that benefit from burning fossil fuels to switch to more Eco-friendly alternatives. A single flight with a plane represent quite a few eaten goats of C02 for people living in the poorest places in the world, but there is a lot of people in the world.
As Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh could have said, making the transition to a plant-based diet may be the most effective way an individual can stop climate change as long they already go by bike and don't travel beyond the range of said bike. They should also make sure that heating isn't created through coal, oil, or gas. Heat from burning garbage is an complicated issue, but I suspect it should also be avoided.
We also know there are tons of ways to eat plant based. Have you had Ethiopian, Chinese or Indian dish without meat? Ever subbed meat for beans in a burrito? A great homemade black bean burger, or a snack of hummus? It's easier than ever to eat plant based and cook a whole planet's worth of cusine without resorting to processed fake meats
I know this sounds dumb, but a lot of the difficulty I'm having now is figuring out how to structure plant based meals when I'm used to the structure "a piece of meat with some vegetables on the side or as toppings". Its not so much that I miss meat as much as it is that I feel like my meal is missing something and I'm not sure what non-animal thing should fill that role.
We are acidying our oceans at an alarming rate and the consequences will come like a tsunami. We're on pace to completely drain the Ogallala Aquifer in the very near future and our main food production capabilities will disappear along with them. The C02 tax will happen but it will be built into very limited food and drinkable water supply and their absorbent prices. We will slowly starve ourselves out first from the poorest countries and the richest ones last. It will be a very painful process. Thanos would be a mercy.
One way to answer that question is to ponder the following question - if we can reduce the price 90% of the time by say half, how much are you willing to pay for power in the remaining 10% of the time?
There are a multitude of technical solutions.
But you can only see them if you actually look for them. If you're down in a nuclear 24/7-constant-output-except-for-one-refueling-month-per-year pit, then you can't.
Cheap renewables are going to be favoured by the marked forces. Yes, we need to solve the gaps, but will just have to do so. Nuclear can't do it, so there's really little room for nuclear in the future.
As for cheap renewables being favored: check out this other thread about Californians banning new solar installations in the desert . As we ramp wind and solar from 3% of total energy (not just electricity) towards 100%, you can bet you'll see significant NIMBY stuff at work. Plus, what are you going to do with the waste from all the gargantuan retiring solar and win farms and chemical battery systems?
You mention that nuclear can't do it without substantiating it. Care to expand on why that'd be impossible? France and Ontario are doing pretty well in the decarbonized world at the moment thanks to nuclear. 
South Korean reactors in UAE are behind schedule. China takes 6 years to build reactors in China and their costs aren't very transparent due to opaque government and censored press. Russia takes even longer to build reactors in Russia and abroad. India takes a decade+ to finish a reactor. France can't build their new reactors swiftly or affordably, either in Finland or in France. We all know how Westinghouse's AP1000 has fared in South Carolina, Georgia, and China.
Ontario experienced drastic cost overruns building the Darlington reactors in the first place and rejected new Darlington reactors a decade ago because the projected costs were too high.
The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.
Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.
I have some hopes that small modular reactors will eventually break out of the rut of disappointment that recent Western reactor projects have furrowed. I'm not trusting anybody's cost/schedule estimates until some SMR projects are actually in commercial operation.
Finally, if NIMBY is a legitimate obstacle to renewable projects, it's also a legitimate obstacle to nuclear projects. (I think that NIMBY is not a good reason to block either renewable facilities or nuclear plants, but I'm not King of Earth.)
 You might think that requiring swift completion on top of affordability is excessive, but my view is that Western projects that aren't fast will become expensive as well. Even projects that never get within earshot of the NRC, like building transmission lines or refurbishing bridges, are very predictably expensive if they stretch beyond 5 years.
We've detached ourselves totally from the material world. Everyone is
a money massager or investment banker. But point is that everything
has been made by someone somewhere. Primary iron (electric arc
furnace, in US is recycled) 1 billion tonnes of coke per year to make
primary iron in China. 1.6 B tonnes of steel. Cement: 4.2 B tonnes/year
with the worst possible fuel. 300 M t plastics. And ammonia.
Without these there are no roads and buildings and metal. These
are fundamental pillars of civilization that have no non-fossil
sources. Carnegie melon made 5 g of iron by reducing with hydrogen.
So how do you replace 4 pillars of civilization in scale with something
non-carbon? DR Congo have lots of hydro. There could be a lot of
hydro building there. India has some coal, they will burn all of it.
Indian coal is low quality. Until at least 2047 coal will be
primary source of India energy. You don't want to think about
future of energy in Africa. If you have 0.5 Billion in Nigeria.
If you want sleepless nights, think about Nigeria. Cleave it
any way and it will have half a billion. No reliable electricity in the capital. To answer your question he has no idea, it's a nightmare. Lots of cleavages.
One big river is drying out. Sunshine isn't going to carry the
Strangely enough today we officially went into Autumn yet that too feels like Summer across most of Australia.
This leads me to believe that in fact the world has seriously under estimated climate change.
For what little it is worth, my last 10+ years of lived experience here in Australia has seen things getting hotter and hotter.
My take on the situation is the IPC have actually got it wrong and there are way more, unidentified positive feedback loops in play, meaning the global climate system is actually showing signs of accelerated warning.
Here in Australia we are now in Autumn and the temperature is +10 above average, making it feel like the middle of Summer.
Time will tell, if in the next few year's we once again manage to break this current Autumn heatwave record. I suspect it will.
Thing is, when they say global average of +1 or +2 degrees C, people have a hard time mapping that to how that works out.
If you measure 4, 5, 5, 6 the average is 5. If you measure 1, 2, 9, 9 the average just increased to 5.25. So very hot summers can be "masked" by colder winters.
Ocean acidification, thawing tundra, burning lands.
We could stop all human activities tomorrow and those processes will continue to accelerate, releasing ever more greenhouse gases.
And if the oceans warm much more, methane clathrate will be released. We could easily hit 2000ppm. Conditions not since since the Eocene period.
We need to actively secure and capture CO2 and methane to stabilize our climate, much less reverse the warming.
Just adding less CO2 to the atmosphere is not enough to stop the trend, we actually need to undo what we've been doing all these decades and need to massively invest in carbon extraction technologies. Trillions of dollars, probably - about the same amount of what we spent on the Iraq war, so I'd say it's not undo-able.
However, if we can prevent (more years of) extreme weather and rising sea levels by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, then the total bill for the whole project will be lower because we don't have to pay for undoing the damage.
Additionally, who says that money spent on climate change prevention is money wasted? I'm fairly convinced that these investments will actually create jobs, in addition to preventing disaster.
There's a lot of things that can be electrified, that currently aren't.
Air conditioning including plain old ventilation is the hard one to tackle and is already electrified.
I (personally) include heat pumps in the heating category, and yes most houses are probably under insulated. Insulation can lower the air con load also.
Modern concepts like https://skysails.info/ hardly interfere with deck access at all.
- Heat pumps for space and water heating, instead of gas, heating oil etc. Cooking on an induction stovetop instead of gas.
- Electric transport (cars, buses, trains.... maybe hyperloops to substitute for airplanes)
- Electric heating for furnaces, kilns etc
- Production of industrial chemicals via electric processes, eg hydrogen (hence ammonia, methanol etc) by electrolysis instead of steam methane reforming
etc. etc. With electricity, you can even reform CO2 into useful products (eg methanol, synthetic hydrocarbons, dimethyl ether), replacing current CO2 producing processes with ones that utilise CO2. (And if you are interested in supporting this, I would like to hear from you as this is my current area of work).
It made be realise that it's going to be a bit of a long haul for getting industry away from greenhouse gas producing energy. BTW, this also largely explains why Japan's auto makers didn't have a massive problem when the nuclear power plants shut down after the Fukushima disaster. It's a bit depressing to think about it...
Congratulations, you have banned Chinese food. I’m reasonably confident most professional chefs and a lot of amateurs would be very, very angry if you tried to ban cooking with gas. People aren’t actually willing to make sacrifices to their own personal quality of life to fight climate change as we’ve seen many times with carbon taxes or with the yellow vest movement in France.
I believe the main problem with yellow vests was that they balanced raised diesel tax by eliminating wealth tax. Had they instead reduced income tax in the lowest bracket for example, people might have been much less angry.
They aren't cheap though. I seriously want one :-) But your general point is well taken.
Being able to see that heat is different - yes, gas flame is more visible and intuitive.
No, I have not. Stop being silly.
But, you've banned the kebab shop instead. They will have to use the slower heated stone frying. ;)
The longest range Teslas have 100 KWh batteries in them. Our house of 6 people uses about 8-10 KWh per day.
It's not just cars too - every transportation system is in some state of transitioning now, even boats and planes (though very early stages there). All of the trains in the Netherlands are powered by wind energy.
Civilization is electrifying, so cheap renewables are only becoming more effective at mitigating CO2 emissions.
This is not a technical problem. We know the threat, we know what we should do, but we can't actually get it done.
This is a political problem.
And to my eye, it's a particularly intractable one. In democracies, in order to make the huge sweeping changes required to avoid the worst of climate change, you need the population on board. And they are not on board for those kinds of changes. You can scream and wave your hands all you want about CO2 taxes and smaller houses and not eating meat, but as soon as you start hitting people in their pockets hard to encourage other actions, they'll just vote you out of office instead. There will always be another politician who is happy to tell the population that they don't need to put up with this crazy sacrifice, there are better ways, etc. So either you get voted out of office or you just cave to the pressure.
Humans are going to suffer from climate change, a lot. And even then, I suspect technology is what will save us, not billions of people deciding (for the first time ever) to make great individual sacrifices for the greater long-term good. It's the ultimate collective action problem, and we are not up for it.
Another large chunk of emissions come from burning fuel for heating, at least 11% (commercial/residential heating slice) but probably about half of the industry slice as well comes from local energy generation. This tends to be harder to replace with batteries because of the form of energy desired, e.g. you can't replace an acetylene torch with electricity.
If we very generously assume that most modes of transportation excepting airplanes and snowmobiles can be run on batteries, and gas heating can be replaced with electric heat pumps, the proportion of emissions affected by these two technologies could be around 60-70%. That's not a complete fix, but it is a big piece of the puzzle. However, the technology turnover is extremely difficult and expensive, which I think is the bigger problem hiding behind "renewables".
The problem is not manufacturing but mostly smelting and refining. (Including recycling)
You need huge sustained and peak energy input for that, renewables do not deliver it.
^ This is a proposal that we consider the ocean as a source for relatively affordable pumped storage.
There's no escaping the fact that the developed world emits more carbon per capita than the rest of the world. To me, it's obvious: the developed world needs to become drastically more efficient with carbon, and it needs to do it yesterday. We need to lead the way, and we need to pay for it. It makes no sense to put this on the backs of the developing world – who are already suffering the consequences of our emissions.
If I had to put it on a bumper sticker, it would be: "It's Agriculture, stupid." Conventional agriculture damages topsoil, and destroys forests, which are two of the most effective carbon sinks we have. When you combine that with the amount of petrochemicals involved in conventional farming, along with fuel burned freighting food halfway across the world on a daily basis (how are those out-of-season cherries?), we're just beginning to come to terms with just how big of a contributor our food system is to global warming.
Here's my list of what we should be doing:
1) Carbon tax
2) Eating less meat, and less out-of-season produce
3) Repairing soil and forests through conservation and more sustainable farming
4) Letting people work remotely to cut down on car and air travel
5) Massive public and private investment in infrastructure
6) Universal access to family planning
Here’s an uncomfortable fact few know about and even fewer are talking about:
If humanity, and all we have ever created, evaporated from the planet tomorrow, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 concentration to come down by 100 ppm.
Source: Ice core data going back 800,000 years. Look it up and see for yourself (sorry can’t link right now).
If what you’re saying is that simply removing humans from the equation wouldn’t change atmospheric CO2 for a long time, I think we’re actually in agreement there. It supports my point that population control isn’t how we’re going to get on a different trajectory in the decade or so we have.
But I don’t think it addresses the ideas of effective carbon capture. Soil carbon capture, for one, is incredibly promising. Reforestation is another.
Technological solutions, megadeaths to reduce consumption or dealing with climate change. These are the only realistic options. China and India aren’t staying poor.
No doubt you could go much further along that road.
And what's wrong with wearing more clothes in the winter?!
There is no way you are going to get Americans to voluntarily reduce their standard of living outside of a war. That applies to Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Chinese and everyone else too. Americans aren’t special.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wearing more clothes in winter but it is a consistent vote loser, like all the other realistic proposals for individual action on climate change. This past winter I wore plenty of extra clothes but people like being able to walk around inside in a T-shirt and pants. Everywhere they can afford to they do it more or less as soon as it’s affirdable, maybe with a thirty year generation gap.
My point is you don't have to reduce your standard of living (quality of life). Does the average American have a better standard of living than the Average European, and is it so much better that it accounts for the much higher carbon footprint?
I've never voted for anyone on the basis of wearing more or less clothes. Id hazard a guess that most voters wouldn't identify it as a top 10 issue. Plus didn't Jimmy Carter tell people to wear a sweater?
Yes. The only countries with higher average individual consumption than the US are Norway and Switzerland.
The only country with bigger houses than the US is Australia.
Jimmy Carter wasn’t re-elected.
The average European living in a city may not have a car, that is not the same as the average American who lives in a city and doesn't own a car. European cities are have a lot better public transportation, so you don't need a car.
In my experience houses in the city tend to be smaller than houses in the country. But the city is where the wealth is created, so it doesn't seem to me that larger houses should be an indicator of wealth in and of itself. I'm undecided whether living in the city with a smaller house but higher income would lead to a higher quality of life versus living in a bigger house in the country, but with a lower income. I suspect its probably down to personal preference.
Which means it's effectively impossible to do, because as soon as you try, they'll vote you out of office. Short of suspending elections, I don't see how democracies make the level of changes needed until we're actually suffering badly from climate change. But historically it doesn't seem like the types of people who become tyrants do so because it's the only path available to save the society from itself.
Not sure what this number tell other than that we all in developed countries need to reduce our footprint, but some more than others
Likely house lacking enough insulation - this is what is wrong.
I'm not averse to building insulation either though.
If your hands and feet are getting cold at 17-18c you're obviously blessed with a better climate than I.
Insulation and air sealing makes a huge difference, especially in cold climates like where I live, where it often gets down to -25°C or colder in winter. I live in a basement with very old, leaky windows, so the floor never really warms up. When I'm at my computer I tend to not move much, and in that position there's poor blood flow to my hands. I turn up the electric heater when I need to (electricity is very expensive here), but I normally rely on the gas stove at the other end of the house.
I actually have no problem being outside when it's cold, and even prefer it over summer. The difference is that I don't stand in one position when I'm outside. When I'm outside I'm shovelling snow, turning a wrench, or walking.
If you get to -25c you get colder winters than me. It surprises me that you get cold at 17-18c, I wonder if its a draft, or you have poor circulation (Raynauds disease ?)
Or maybe it because I have kids, so never actually get the chance to sit down.
Setting temperature is almost orthogonal. delta T is not much different between 17-18 and 24 if it is -10 outside.
When my house was built it has 1 inch of loft insulation. Now as far as I can tell there weren't condensation problems, but that wouldn't have been enough to keep the house warm through winter so you would still need extra heat/clothes/both.
I do for the record now have over a foot of insulation in the loft and still require extra heating, and I put a jumper on.
I mean, megadeaths in poor third world coastal regions won't necessarily force people in New York to reduce consumption. If (for example) sea level rise starts threatening New York directly, then it can afford Netherlands-style solutions that somewhat mitigate the local consequences.
Not need to be so dramatic. Upgrading one's iPhone every other year instead of every year hardly constitutes poverty.
I believe that fighting climate change vs quality of life is false dichotomy. We can do both. See this comment for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19267752
Good luck convincing Midwesterners or Texans who think nothing of driving someplace for four hours that a massive gas tax is worth it. Good luck convincing everyone in the suburbs to abandon their homes to move into a city. Good luck convincing people used to taking two holidays to the suna year that they can have one every two years.
What I think or you think does not matter. What the median voter thinks matters and if you try to make them consume less outside of a war they will vote you out.
If you and everyone in your country decreases their consumption and number of offspring then the slack will taken up by others until the environment once again bears as much as it can.
I understand what you're saying, but it's acceptable to take a stand against sweatshops, child labour etc. Why not against pollution?