View Full Version : Solutions for climate change
Hello, I thought it would be useful to have a discussion in one thread for the pros and cons, done and undone, promised and coming solutions for climate change.
1. Technical solutions look obvious and necessary.
The overall model of climate change prediction is very complicated and it has a lot of missing data (because of the lack of specific satellites coverage and on-earth probes).
This year scientific-engineering groups have launched more data collection probes to oceans. There is a planned launch of satellites aimed for data CO2 3D atmospheric data collection, simply we don’t have the full understanding of it’s behaviour and exact influence.
2. Global awareness and local actions. Fires, floods and extremely hot weather this year is the fact.
Environmental awareness not only shows growth in the media, but also takes its steps.
Local ecosystems need specific surveillance from space and on earth.
This is the case of ‘the more the better’, when it comes to the complex math models giving leverages for climate control. Driving force for the largest industries and everyday personal life.
3. Energy sources should consider all the possibilities with the pro’s and con’s: solar, wind, tidal, nuclear. On national and international level decisions, proactiveness and the ‘safety first’ consideration.
4 Personal lifestyle. For some extremes we should be ready to go out of our comfort zone, look around and reconsider lifestyle.
Personal contribution, local actions and reports, the technology on a global level.
We already have all we need to work on climate change, do not sit and wait.
5. Education from secondary school till career start should teach the future generations of technology experts ways to develop and control the most influential areas: power source, space, communication industries (as space placements in industry (https://www.skyrora.com/career)).
happystuff
11-2-21, 9:48am
I feel I have most control over #4 Personal lifestyle. I have been trying to make changes within my own household and will continue to do so moving forward. It may be "just me", but I'm looking at it from the perspective that every little bit helps.
I agree with happy stuff. My morning shower thoughts on this topic are that we are quick to blame corporations and politicians for the mess we are in but...we are the ones who continually support the existing paradigms. So many things need to change but innovation moves slowly and the majority of people don't give it a second thought.
ApatheticNoMore
11-2-21, 12:09pm
We have the most control over personal lifestyle but it also has the least impact.
I often tried to combine trips etc.. but when work from home started in the pandemic, only then did my gasoline consumption fall by 3/4s, combing trips was a drop in the bucket in comparison. And that wasn't my personal lifestyle, that was a (pandemic driven) large societal change. I cut back on other driving too, it was a pandemic, but a great deal of driving is commuting. Now everyone could just move within walking distance of work I suppose and achieve the same thing (the catch there is they have to keep moving every time they change jobs and if it's a two income couple living together may as well just forget it, because the odds are very low they both get jobs within walking distance).
I disagree on "the more the better" with studies. We know what is wrong already. More models and data will not convince climate science deniers.
Zero or negative population growth would have the biggest impact in my opinion. Providing birth control on demand throughout the world would be one step in that direction.
ApatheticNoMore
11-2-21, 1:00pm
It probably doesn't help that I see personal consumption as some minor thing that may make the least possible impact but complicates one's life vastly. Wait the ultimate example of that is recycling isn't it? It's larger policy, not individual choices, that mean there are no convenient options for renters to recycle. But one could drive at least a 20 mile round trip to recycle, and then it may not even get recycled ... I've done it but, not since the pandemic.
Things like not flying, well I don't. Things like switching to all electric for cooking and cancelling the gas bill might make sense as they straight out deny revenue to industries like natural gas that need to go away. And yes let's assume a rental that one can't rewire and so it's toaster ovens and instapots etc.. But then if it also has a water heater, you probably can't entirely eliminate the gas bill, unless you want those showers to be cold.
ApatheticNoMore
11-2-21, 1:05pm
Zero or negative population growth would have the biggest impact in my opinion. Providing birth control on demand throughout the world would be one step in that direction.
the problem with that is not that population control isn't needed, but that many don't think it can have an impact fast enough to matter enough for climate change.
Your list in the OP is pretty comprehessive, but to play off Bae's tongue-in-cheek comment, any common list or analysis of global warming causes that I have seen has agriculture among the top few contributors. We need to change how food is produced, or what we eat, or both. There should be better ways to segregate the vital few from the trivial many and focus on those.
I don't think the planet can sustain our current levels of consumption and growth regardless of how green the energy or raw material source is wihout significantly damaging ecosystems and the general human conditions.
happystuff
11-2-21, 1:09pm
We have the most control over personal lifestyle but it also has the least impact.
Maybe, maybe not. I like to think/hope that the actions of enough people DO make a difference. Me NOT buying or using plastic water bottles is keeping more plastic water bottles out of the cycle. Add even a few others doing it and it's a start. Example is plastic grocery bags. Yes, they are still used, but how many people now actually take their own reusable bags?
I have way more questions than answers but they mostly come down to how our culture has played out and I guess why I was attracted to a simple living philosophy:
Why do we keep building 3000 sf houses on cul de sacs on the far edges of towns and cities?
Why do we keep throwing up carwashes, storage units and strip malls all over the place?
Why do we continue with the standard gardening paradigm of grass lawns, irrigation systems, mowers and blowers, fertilizers and pesticides?
Why do we need one more hamburger chain?
Why is 90% of every non-food item I buy made in a foreign country, primarily Asia?
Why is making money/profit at the top of every decision
And on and on...
iris lilies
11-2-21, 9:19pm
I watch the new houses being built in my hometown in Iowa. I’m actually amazed at how many are 1200 to 1500 ft.². These are not big houses.
I could say that the "con" of the current environmental movement is that people are willing to pour millions and billions into "green" technology which will not fix the problem because all green technologies are intended to allow us to uphold our current unsustainable lifestyles. (Bright Green Lies, Derrick Jensen, Liere Keith and Max Wilbert)
Or our values are unsustainable and corrupted and corporations, industry and government have pretty much conspired to break up communities and fragment the "wholeness" of the culture (The Unsettling of America, Wendell Berry)
Or a long time ago, agriculture has only served to kick us out of the Garden of Eden and turn us into a bunch of Takers (Ishmael, Daniel Quinn)
Or, we have lost of sense of awe and wonder and desire to preserve the natural world for its own sake
I believe that the climate change focus diverts us from some of these other themes. I think the climate change story is too abstract for most people. I don't care about numbers. I care that step-by-step over hundreds, if not thousands of years we have wound up with another Golden Calf due to our hubris, but we can't see it because we are in a Plato's Cave where the only images on the wall are what we see in our own homes, streets, cities and nations. And we don't allow ourselves to question anything about it. We defend it, and we can't even consider alternative ways of life.
I was talking to DH about these issues, and he was saying, "But what can we do? What you are talking about is Utopia!" And my response was--no, we had "utopia"--and left it behind for the devastation of land, air, water, and community.
I am open to technology to fix some things. I'm not a total Luddite, but I think our main issues are internal, not external. We've constructed a culture that has very little connection to the natural world. You aren't going to save what you don't value.
"Many excellent thoughts"
Well said!
flowerseverywhere
11-2-21, 10:27pm
Reduce, reuse, recycle. Eat less and local. Wear lighter or heavier clothing to reduce heat and air conditioning. Buy everything you can secondhand to reduce the amount that must be manufactured. Carpool, consolidate car trips, walk or bike. zero or negative population growth. Maintain everything in peak condition so you extend its life.
Turn off the electronics and read or play games or go for a walk. Or sit outside and meditate. In other words if you can find an alternative to using less energy for everything from can openers, food processors, cars, hot water, heating and cooling, etc. do it.
In other words, return to a simpler lifestyle.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 2:12am
Maybe humanity is just an evolutionary mistake/dead-end.
happystuff
11-3-21, 9:36am
Nicely said, catherine.
Maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist, but I think green technology and continuing world population decrease will go a long way toward alleviating pressure on the planet. At any rate, I don't believe human beings can destroy the earth--quite the opposite.
I have no desire to live in a yurt and subsist on salmon and apples. I'm more than happy to live simply in other ways.
happystuff
11-3-21, 10:32am
Sadly, I think the biggest problem to overcome is the mentality of "save the earth but don't inconvenience me in any way".
Come to think of it, a yurt would probably be an improvement...:~)
happystuff
11-3-21, 11:08am
Come to think of it, a yurt would probably be an improvement...:~)
And I was thinking that salmon (and apples) would definitely be an upgrade. LOL
catherine
11-3-21, 11:21am
And I was thinking that salmon (and apples) would definitely be an upgrade. LOL
I like the idea that we actually have the CHOICE to eat salmon... who knows what the next few years will bring.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 12:02pm
Human beings destroy the earth ... well the earth has gone through periods called "hothouse/greenhouse earth" before, that's not to say human beings could survive them, they haven't been around long enough, we are talking geological time. CO2 levels can fluctuate naturally over time and produce hothouse earth, over long periods of time. And sometimes it seems some life survived, just not human life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
"The best available record for a transition from an icehouse to greenhouse period in which plant life existed is for the Permian period, which occurred around 300 million years ago. A major transition took place 40 million years ago and caused Earth to change from a moist, icy planet in which rainforests covered the tropics to a hot, dry, and windy location in which little could survive"
Only now we have nuclear power etc. which would probably Chernobyl the whole planet as well, given human extinction.
catherine
11-3-21, 12:09pm
Human beings destroy the earth ... well the earth has gone through periods called "hothouse/greenhouse earth" before, that's not to say human beings could survive them, they haven't been around long enough, we are talking geological time. CO2 levels can fluctuate naturally over time and produce hothouse earth, over periods of geological time. And sometimes it seems some life survived, just not human life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
"The best available record for a transition from an icehouse to greenhouse period in which plant life existed is for the Permian period, which occurred around 300 million years ago. A major transition took place 40 million years ago and caused Earth to change from a moist, icy planet in which rainforests covered the tropics to a hot, dry, and windy location in which little could survive"
Only now we have nuclear power etc. which would probably Chernobyl the whole planet as well, given human extinction.
Yes, but we've never had the ability to exploit the earth through industrial methods to such a devastating extent before. I don't care about CO2 levels. I care that people don't care.. about topsoil erosion, overfishing, clearcutting Amazon rainforests and depriving of the indigenous culture of their communities and ways of life, the fact that I can drive through all the backroads of Vermont and emerge with no need to clean my windshield of dead insects, of the fact that 10,000 species go extinct every year, that the coral reef is grey and lifeless. Why don't we care about those things? Great--no mosquitos to swat, but isn't that a canary in a coal mine?
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 12:45pm
Sadly, I think the biggest problem to overcome is the mentality of "save the earth but don't inconvenience me in any way".
if we translate inconvenience into it's real terms: more work, it's not that surprising.
Let's assume that most people will have to work at least 40 hours a week to earn a living. Many will work more, they have to to keep the job, to advance, have to work more than 1 job etc.. So that's a minimum for most. Then there is (or WAS?) the commute, that's another hour or two a day. Then there is just household chores. If one is single, these might not be too overwhelming, maybe the place is spotless, maybe it's somewhat messy, but enough of what needs to get done does. If one is partnered though, well congrats as a woman statistically now more of the household chores will fall on you, even though you probably work as many hours as a man. If there are kids to raise, well that's more work for both parents, but as a woman, congrats statistically more of the childrearing will fall on you, even though you are probably working full time. It's thus for any other caretaking. But even if it was perfectly evenly divided, it's still a lot of work. I used to come home from work and commute and very nearly collapse into a ball. I couldn't imagine having any more to give. Then people should take on more work because of social responsibility, so let's say they do minimally, they read a bit of news, they research the candidates and the 20 propositions for the upcoming election. Woohoo the "I voted" sticker. WAit, wait, there's self-maintenence, are you exercising, meditating etc.? Btw that I never do all this, I mostly just stress-out :). But fine even the minimal, a daily walk let's say. Are you eating healthy, 5 vegetables a day? Oh no does cooking need to be added to the daily chores (btw I cook, but I find it a burden often and occasionally fun). What about human relationships? Are you maintaining 5 close relationships? Studies say ... What about your career? Sure you put in the hours at the daily grind. But is that all you do? Are you keeping up on the latest developments in the field you work in as well, or are you just coasting? Grow or die (wo)man, grow or die.
Whew that's a lot of work, but with careful time management ...
No, no, no all of this is not enough! You are still thinking of convenience over the planet!!! Are you adding another hour to your already 1-2 hour daily commute by taking the bus? OR spending a few hour fueling your electric car every week (this is easier if you have a house you can plug in it too in the driveway over night, harder if you don't even have a designated parking space at your rental apartment, I have a rental it might work at). Driving your recycling to the recycling center? Hang drying your laundry? (btw I would do this to make clothes last longer but do draw the line at hang drying all my underwear).
-----
SO ... in the past I've heard humans worked at most 5 hours a day ... and the rest was leisure in community ....
...
Let's assume that most people will have to work at least 40 hours a week to earn a living.
...
SO ... in the past I've heard humans worked at most 5 hours a day ... and the rest was leisure in community ....
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91ZW3fQc9BL.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91ZW3fQc9BL.jpg
Exactly.
Actually, ETA that bae turned me/us on to Sahlins in a post a while back (a long while).
On Amazon:
Marshall Sahlins's Stone Age Economics has established itself as a classic of modern anthropology and arguably one of the founding works of anthropological economics. Ambitiously tackling the nature of economic life and how to study it comparatively, Sahlins radically revises traditional views of the hunter-gatherer and so-called primitive societies, revealing them to be the original "affluent society."
At a previous company I worked for, people often visited from other offices overseas. The UK folks were obnoxious. Loved to lecture us on not taking public transit. They’d go on and on. The differences in population location and the transit options that existed didn’t matter.
I’ve stopped conversations with electric car proponents cold with a couple of questions: what are apartment dwellers supposed to do to plug in electric cars? What about long distance trips in areas where chargers are non-existent? What about the power grid? It’s probably going to need some updating to handle a lot of cars charging.
I think hybrids should be pushed more in the near future as as a more green option.
My big issue with electric/hyvrid cars are the batteries. Difficult to recycle. Those mining important raw materials seem to often be in questionable conditions.
At a previous company I worked for, people often visited from other offices overseas. The UK folks were obnoxious. Loved to lecture us on not taking public transit. They’d go on and on. The differences in population location and the transit options that existed didn’t matter.
I’ve stopped conversations with electric car proponents cold with a couple of questions: what are apartment dwellers supposed to do to plug in electric cars? What about long distance trips in areas where chargers are non-existent? What about the power grid? It’s probably going to need some updating to handle a lot of cars charging.
I think hybrids should be pushed more in the near future as as a more green option.
My big issue with electric/hyvrid cars are the batteries. Difficult to recycle. Those mining important raw materials seem to often be in questionable conditions.
This makes me think about a time when my mother, who was at that point dependent upon her living facility to determine her actions, was supposed to visit us, a couple of hours away in NY State. I sent DH because I needed to go to work. He was free that day. He drove 2 hours to CT to pick her up, only to find out that she was unable to be released for some bureaucratic reason or another. He was furious. When he asked her about it, she said, "I knew [I hadn't complied with the rules] but I figured God would work out the details"--a response that really drove DH nuts. He was furious when he returned home without her.
But this is how I see the climate stuff. DH saying "You are wishing for Utiopia!" and, Tradd, your reasonable questions about hybrid cars vs the mining of lithium they require. The logistics of chargers.
"God working out the details" to me means, where do we WANT to go?? Will it be easy? NO. Can we do it? YES, if we accept it will take time, sacrifice, labor, brainpower... all of it.
Let's just keep our eyes on "the change we wish to see in the world." Don't be discouraged. "[God/The Universe/The Source] will work out the details.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 1:49pm
The plugging electric cars (and battery replacement expense, and limited range - I mean sure maybe a Tesla has more range, and Teslas are a very common sight here, but that's $$$$$$$$, we are talking cheap Nissan Leafs that are within budget) in is one reason why my boyfriend got a hydrogen car.
There is some question of how green that is for sure as it's usually fossil fuel derived, but it does drive what might *someday* be a useful green technology, early adopters sometimes do. But the hydrogen infrastructure, which only exists in California as far as the U.S goes, is a mess, it does not function well, many times he has had to rent a car. I'm probably an influence on my boyfriend for environmental awareness but sheesh, I don't make people get electric/hydrogen/etc. cars. As policy, sure we need to move off fossil fuels, as individuals, bah, it's not my business. And I drive a *gas car*. That mostly came about as a sequence of events, basically needed a new car while unemployed, and so money being a major issue. Is it always? No. Was it then? Yep.
Yes the power grid may need to be updated for electric cars but that seems plenty doable if there was the will.
Look at California. The grid needs big updating. They shut down the power to millions when they’re afraid of wildfires.
And I’m not discouraged. My questions essentially come from a place where we’re being pushed to do all this green stuff, like electric cars, when the infrastructure isn’t there to support it.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 2:07pm
Look at California. The grid needs big updating. They shut down the power to millions when they’re afraid of wildfires.
the problem is it's a private company (most of the fires caused by electrical wires were PG&E) and so the maintenance was assumed to fall on them not the state I guess, but they haven't done it, and the state has let them slide too much, also they are bankrupt (well have been in chapter 11 but maybe still profitable). Should the state or the Fed gov just take over the maintenance? Probably. Should the state just take over that utility entirely? I often think so. Maybe the state could also make a more considered decision on shutting down nuclear power, given that it's PG&Es decision to shut it down, but that one is dicey no matter how you slice it (while many concerned about climate may not advocate building new nuclear power plants, they usually do advocate using the existing ones for awhile more, but noone wants to think about one in their backyard even if it's been there awhile - but the decision was made by a private company, but the state maybe could have had it's input).
And I’m not discouraged. My questions essentially come from a place where we’re being pushed to do all this green stuff, like electric cars, when the infrastructure isn’t there to support it.
I know. But in my mind, as a "big picture" person, that's all in the details. If the will is there, the way will follow.
the problem is it's a private company (most of the fires caused by electrical wires were PG&E) and so the maintenance was assumed to fall on them not the state I guess, but they haven't done it, and the state has let them slide too much, also they are bankrupt (well have been in chapter 11 but maybe still profitable). Should the state or the Fed gov just take over the maintenance? Probably. Should the state just take over that utility entirely? I often think so. Maybe the state could also make a more considered decision on shutting down nuclear power, given that it's PG&Es decision to shut it down, but that one is dicey no matter how you slice it (while many concerned about climate may not advocate building new nuclear power plants, they usually do advocate using the existing ones for awhile more, but noone wants to think about one in their backyard even if it's been there awhile - but the decision was made by a private company, but the state maybe could have had it's input).
That's what happens when you turn utilities over to for-profit entities--nothing good. They should be part of the commons, like public schools, prisons, etc.
Now that I'm a grandma, all these things seem more urgent. I can only think that humans are so adaptable that a generation of not knowing the natural world will never miss it. They can put on their VR sets and experience it in their heads. However, I think some of the mental illness going on in the present is exacerbated by a disconnect from nature.
happystuff
11-3-21, 9:02pm
if we translate inconvenience into it's real terms: more work, it's not that surprising.
Let's assume that most people will have to work at least 40 hours a week to earn a living. Many will work more, they have to to keep the job, to advance, have to work more than 1 job etc.. So that's a minimum for most. Then there is (or WAS?) the commute, that's another hour or two a day. Then there is just household chores. If one is single, these might not be too overwhelming, maybe the place is spotless, maybe it's somewhat messy, but enough of what needs to get done does. If one is partnered though, well congrats as a woman statistically now more of the household chores will fall on you, even though you probably work as many hours as a man. If there are kids to raise, well that's more work for both parents, but as a woman, congrats statistically more of the childrearing will fall on you, even though you are probably working full time. It's thus for any other caretaking. But even if it was perfectly evenly divided, it's still a lot of work. I used to come home from work and commute and very nearly collapse into a ball. I couldn't imagine having any more to give. Then people should take on more work because of social responsibility, so let's say they do minimally, they read a bit of news, they research the candidates and the 20 propositions for the upcoming election. Woohoo the "I voted" sticker. WAit, wait, there's self-maintenence, are you exercising, meditating etc.? Btw that I never do all this, I mostly just stress-out :). But fine even the minimal, a daily walk let's say. Are you eating healthy, 5 vegetables a day? Oh no does cooking need to be added to the daily chores (btw I cook, but I find it a burden often and occasionally fun). What about human relationships? Are you maintaining 5 close relationships? Studies say ... What about your career? Sure you put in the hours at the daily grind. But is that all you do? Are you keeping up on the latest developments in the field you work in as well, or are you just coasting? Grow or die (wo)man, grow or die.
Whew that's a lot of work, but with careful time management ...
No, no, no all of this is not enough! You are still thinking of convenience over the planet!!! Are you adding another hour to your already 1-2 hour daily commute by taking the bus? OR spending a few hour fueling your electric car every week (this is easier if you have a house you can plug in it too in the driveway over night, harder if you don't even have a designated parking space at your rental apartment, I have a rental it might work at). Driving your recycling to the recycling center? Hang drying your laundry? (btw I would do this to make clothes last longer but do draw the line at hang drying all my underwear).
-----
SO ... in the past I've heard humans worked at most 5 hours a day ... and the rest was leisure in community ....
My take-away from what you wrote is that everything you do in your life is an inconvenience! I hope not!
happystuff
11-3-21, 9:07pm
However, I think some of the mental illness going on in the present is exacerbated by a disconnect from nature.
I've never thought of some mental illness in this way - interesting!
I agree, catherine. Especially with the "be the change you want to see". Personally, I think doing something is better than doing nothing.
I also agree about the whole car issues that bae pointed out. I think we have some good ideas being generated and materialized - let's see how it all develops and progresses.
My thinking on environmental issues was reframed when I read Ray Anderson's "Midcourse Correction" about 20 years ago. I believe the book came to my attention via discussion here on these forums.
In particular, what grabbed me was his discussion of the Natural Step's conditions for sustainability. To my engineering brain, any consideration of long-term sustainability must examine the underlying system conditions required, and without that, you are just fooling yourself and perhaps engaging in environmentalist cosplay.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 10:50pm
To anyone following (to any degree at all), Cop26, did you know Cop26 has corporate sponsors, oh and some energy companies wanted to be exclusive corporate sponsors and are upset they aren't. Wait what does this even matter, what does that have to do with energy and it's climate impact or anything? It doesn't. It's a trade show. It's a lobbying event. It's a cookbook.
Cop26 brought to you by Ikea (like literally brought to you by Ikea, that's NOT satire, satire can't keep up).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/17/cop26-corporate-sponsors-condemn-climate-summit-as-mismanaged
Whose not invited though? Greta Thunberg.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-21, 11:10pm
There is a fine line between "doing something" and superstition. What is superstition? Often believing something has an effect it doesn't, step on a crack and break your mothers back, don't break a mirror - 7 years bad luck, toss salt over your shoulder, cross your fingers, knock on wood, a pin in the voodoo doll, superstition ain't the way.
It's a new dark ages, and it's going to get worse with climate change
Whats a new dark ages?
Believing in superstition and other irrational beliefs, distrust of science, distrust of things like vaccines .... a new dark ages
But is calling one's political representatives superstition or does it actually change anything? Now, that I could not possibly say, how would I know?
Look at California. The grid needs big updating. They shut down the power to millions when they’re afraid of wildfires.
That’s more of a forestry problem. On hot windy days they cut power in lines that they know they haven’t bothered to cut back the trees next to them.
happystuff
11-17-21, 11:44am
Nuclear power.
I'm sort of okay with that, as long as it is in your back yard and not mine. :) Would much prefer wind or solar at this point in time.
Nuclear power.
Thirty or so years ago a nuclear power plant was built in our county but due to various biases making their way into governmental regulatory agencies it never went online. Last year they began tearing it down.
catherine
11-17-21, 12:02pm
Nuclear power.
Thomas Friedman had an op-ed in the NYT today talking about how we need a lot more Elon Musks and other technology innovators to solve the climate crisis. Many of the comments mentioned and were in support of nuclear power.
Depending upon nuclear energy, and other technology solutions to solve the whole problem is like people who are overweight continuing to overeat while waiting for a magic pill to take the weight off. Nuclear power might solve our energy needs, but it's not going to do anything to keep species from extinction or topsoil from depletion. Is a manufactured substitute for topsoil going to be better than topsoil? To me, that's resorting to the kind of messages women got in the 50s and 60s about baby formula: Oh, formula is better than breastmilk! BS on both counts.
His essay was OK, but I did like his opening "Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die." We want our cake and to eat it, too. I'm not strictly opposed to nuclear energy, (I'd rather not, but as a tool I'm open to it) but only if it comes with, not only Elon Musk solutions, but also Rachel Carson, Vandana Shiva and Greta Thunberg solutions.
ApatheticNoMore
11-17-21, 2:47pm
Could nuclear power even come online fast enough to matter? There is some doubt it could. This is a separate argument than keeping existing plants online, if there are not very specific reasons to close them, they probably should be kept in operation. And at this point it would probably be best to look at how to protect nuclear power plants from the ever increasing erratic weather caused by climate change, like plan for sea level rise, for increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes etc.. But the known unknowns and unknown unknowns. And that type of foresight doesn't seem to exist regardless, or we wouldn't be here to begin with.
I'm not strictly opposed to nuclear energy, (I'd rather not, but as a tool I'm open to it) but only if it comes with, not only Elon Musk solutions, but also Rachel Carson, Vandana Shiva and Greta Thunberg solutions.
agreed.
We need more innovation around climate change, innovations are the solution to climate change, yes and no, I mean ultimately who really knows. It's highly speculative to say the least. It hasn't worked out yet. I mean absent a crystal ball, if we stick to what is actually occurring: adoption of renewables (and it is real, there is growth in renewables) has not reduced global fossil fuel use. Growth in electric cars, even China's massive electric bus fleet, has not reduced global fossil fuel use. As for Elon Musk: isn't even the benefit of Teslas offset by Musks other hobby of bitcoin? I mean first ground the debate in what is actually happening. It's nice a carbon capture plant works but is there really any realistic way to scale it.
Well, absent any amazing technological leaps, the classic boom-and-bust population dynamic should eventually do the trick.
Get the third world women all educated and they’ll stop having so many babies. I’m serious. It’s been proven that once women are educated, they have smaller families.
I don't like nuclear power--I guess it's a necessary evil in some locations. But has anyone solved the problem of nuclear waste yet? (Rhetorical question. No.)
Hanford, in Southern Washington, is a shining example of what having a nuclear power plant can do for you--radiation seeping into the groundwater, being used as a coolant and returned to a now-polluted Columbia, blowing across the area to produce at least one generation of "downwinders," with a myriad of health effects. Now, I see, Bill Gates is trying to foist one on Wyoming.
Germany, arguably the leader of the Western nations, plans to be out of the nuclear business by 2022. IMO, we should look to them for solutions, not continue to saddle our children's children with an as yet unsolvable disposal disaster.
ApatheticNoMore
11-18-21, 2:52am
"Biophysically, there are two general types of technology. Type 1 technology finds ways to use energy more efficiently (power plant improvements, better vehicle fuel efficiency) or invents new energy sources (solar or geothermal). Type 2 technology consists of devices that replace manual human labor (chainsaws, cars) or new ways for humans to use energy (Facebook, Candycrush). cough bitcoin
Currently Type 2 dominates technology inventions and increases total global demand for energy. Technology like the "cloud" is not really "virtual". Computers and cellphones (including servers and networks), consume over 15% of the world’s electricity, and this will increase with the advent of 5 G"
from some paper I started to read (in the ecological economics field)
Technogibberish is always fun to explore, yes.
ApatheticNoMore
11-18-21, 4:13am
well "type 1" and "type 2" is of course just arbitrary terms for drawing distinctions. And the exact energy use of 5g versus 4g, just the fact of transition of communication infrastructure and cell phones would probably use more energy than not doing so, unless it was just natural rate of wear and tear, but I don't claim to know 4g versus 5g energy use in operation. We don't actually have much in the way of real 5g in the u.s. yet was my understanding, maybe that's changing, mostly for many years we just have a lot of things falsely marketed by telecoms as 5g that weren't because the 5g infrastructure didn't exist yet. The rest is just obvious, of course cloud computers use energy, of course non-cloud computers do as well. Of course none of it is resource or energy free. I think that was focusing on oil energy getting more costly to exploit and technology is not saving us by reducing energy use argument rather than climate per se. And yes the experts I have heard on the topic do believe cryptocurrencies increase energy use.
But on the climate topic fossil fuels % of the energy mix has not changed:
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-use-similar-decade-ago-energy-mix-report-says-2021-06-14/
And regardless of whether one finds type 1 and 2 distinctions useful in classifying technologies (I mostly think Thomas Friedman, who is kind of infamous at this point for being wrong about everything, must be assuming most technology is more type 1 but uh ... ), or explaining why energy use has not declined, global energy use has not declined, despite technology.
Might some technology save us? Well it's not impossible. But how does this figure in to 5 years left to emit CO2 at present rates for the 1.5 degrees warming scenario. What is the timeline of technology in comparison? I guess a bit different if it removes carbon or similar.
ApatheticNoMore
11-18-21, 6:10am
I believe that the climate change focus diverts us from some of these other themes. I think the climate change story is too abstract for most people. I don't care about numbers.
it can be abstract, I mean sure if you are talking gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere and degrees or warming, feet sea level rise, whatever, one is just trying to learn from climate scientists then, and sure one tries to get it right, but that's plenty abstract. And one tries to understand how it all fits into things, and yea abstract. But I don't believe much of it is abstract. At all.
I care that step-by-step over hundreds, if not thousands of years we have wound up with another Golden Calf due to our hubris
see that's pretty abstract, an abstract story. But climate change is for some of us the most direct experience we have of ecological changes. It doesn't mean it's the only ecological change or even the worst whatever that might mean, just the most immediately obvious. The most direct. Not abstract. Mediated through our understanding of what is happening to the climate yes but everything is mediated by what we understand of the world so ...
But everything being dead, drought, it never being cold in winter anymore, but it often being hot all year. Places that used to have things alive being mostly dead. Yea one has to understand hey climate change exists to draw the connection (and 20th century CA may have been unusually wet). But the experience is not abstract. And I wonder what kind of alienation from lived reality it would be to think it is. Is there anywhere in the u.s./world it isn't direct yet? I mean I suppose if one lives in a different place every few years one might not notice. But it becomes so much obvious in daily life that it threatens to swallow all other ecological concerns yes, not perhaps fairly in a just world, but because it's really so you couldn't escape thinking about it if you wanted to almost, because it's everywhere, not just online but outside.
Bill Gates and company are building are building an "advanced" nulear reactor in Wyoming. There are claims that the new design eliminates many of the risk factors of the age old plants that have failed or have higher risk. I'm not qualified to pass judgement and there are still issues of waste disposal. If global temperatures continue to rise and efforts to control greenhouse emissions lag (which I consider highy possible) I have to wonder which has the higher risk, advanced nuclear plants or climate related disasters and extinctions. They might have a place in an overall plan or at least a bridge until fossil fuel emissions are under better control through other means?
I just finished reading "The Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson and it was quite thought-provoking. A fun read too, if grim at times.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.