Climate change solutions require collaboration between politicians, scientists and entrepreneurs

submitted by ActuallyNot from theconversation.com

all 17 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's far too late for climate change solutions. Climate change is already occurring, will continue, and our nationalist mindset guarantees that rich nations will respond with nothing but partisan power grabs while buying all their products from East Asia and then blaming those countries for the resulting emissions.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Climate change isn't a Boolean. More is worse.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Humanity has already taken most of the ancient carbon out of the ground and put it in the air, and we will continue to do so until it's too expensive to be worth going after any of the remaining scraps.

This will be driven by economics, not politics. Because for the non-privileged world, economics is the difference between eating and starving.

There is nothing any Western politician, or even all of the Western politicians, can do about it.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We stopped using CFCs because it was killing us, and animals. We can do things because it's sensible.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

CFCs weren't a matter of life and death. They didn't determine the price and availability of food.

We have such a nationalist mindset that we think "We," meaning America or Canada or the UK, can just accept slightly higher prices on energy and the world will be saved.

It's nonsense. There are 170 million people, for example, in Bangladesh. To them, austerity is synonymous with famine and starvation and death.

As a species, we will not drill the last gallon of oil until it's cost-prohibitive to do so. Nothing acceptable can stop this.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

CFCs weren't a matter of life and death.

It killed people. But that's not the point. The point was they were more economic, but because of the externality, the world got together and stopped using them. Except China, but they were on board for a while.

We have such a nationalist mindset that we think "We," meaning America or Canada or the UK, can just accept slightly higher prices on energy and the world will be saved.

Two problems with this.

1) Wind and solar are not higher price. They are lower_-_renewable_energy.svg). The barrier to greater implementation is fossil fuel industry propaganda.

2) I think that we know that the world has to agree to reduce fossil fuels. But even if it doesn't any reserves in Canada, US, Australia or Europe is carbon that isn't going to hit the atmosphere, and so will reduce the cost of climate change.

It's nonsense. There are 170 million people, for example, in Bangladesh. To them, austerity is synonymous with famine and starvation and death.

Then we should assist them to access the cheaper energy sources of wind and solar. Or at least let the market sort it out. Bangladesh is massively vulnerable to sea level rise, and they already have people being displaced, which completely wipes those families out economically speaking.

As a species, we will not drill the last gallon of oil until it's cost-prohibitive to do so. Nothing acceptable can stop this.

We stopped CFCs. We can stop burning coal.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What I mean is that we didn't need CFCs to live. They were primarily used as aerosol propellants and as a less toxic refrigerant. In other words, they had very niche uses.

It just can't be compared to humanity's primary fuel source. It's like the difference between asking someone to give up skinny jeans and asking them to give up food.

Because that's literally what we'd be doing in the poorest countries - asking them to give up food. If South and Southeast Asia don't emit carbon dioxide, the people starve.

But, again, Western politicians are so nationalist they simply pretend those places don't exist.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We don't need to not move to other energy sources to live.

If South and Southeast Asia don't emit carbon dioxide, the people starve.

There are other sources of energy. Ones that will provide more energy for the same investment.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are other sources of energy. Ones that will provide more energy for the same investment.

And where does this investment come from? Who's going to just donate trillions upon trillions of dollars to Cambodia and Laos and Myanmar and Afghanistan and the thirty-three undeveloped African nations?

Right now we've got highly developed countries like France bragging that they're 20% renewable. That's as far as we've gotten since the late '60s, when we noticed the problem. Fifty years later, no country with a population over 25 million has achieved more than 20%.

With massive political will, and a population receptive to austerity measures (or a flat-out Stalinist push, human rights be damned), perhaps a heavily populated nation could achieve 100% for itself.

But achieve it for the billions and billions of people living in societies that are still developing? It's just not going to happen. Not without a massive shift in how we govern ourselves, on the order of eliminating countries entirely and establishing a world government.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And where does this investment come from?

Same source of revenue as the coal plants would have.

Government funds or world bank loans.

Additionally, a little bit of UN donations Fund-of-Funds Investing in Clean Energy Infrastructure in Developing Countries

Right now we've got highly developed countries like France bragging that they're 20% renewable.

26%, if we're talking electricity prodcution. But they're 63% nuclear, which is 89% zero emissions from fuel: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1263322/electrical-production-by-sector-france/

Fifty years later, no country with a population over 25 million has achieved more than 20%.

Kenya is mostly renewable for electricity production. They've got 53 million people.

Brazil is also mostly renewable for electricity. They've got 214 million. Even overall Brazil is about 45% renewable.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

China is the world's worst polluter. Batteries required for so called green energy are mined with slave labor and cause great destruction to the environment. What are you doing to stop this?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course, this conveniently ignores the fact that everyone quite gleefully lives in homes where everything is stamped "Made In China" while at the same point pointing their finger at China and saying "It's all their fault."

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

China is the world's worst polluter.

Not per capita.

Batteries required for so called green energy are mined with slave labor

In those Chinese slave battery mines?

and cause great destruction to the environment.

What specific great destruction to which specific environment are these slave Chinese battery mines causing?

[–]SMCAB 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The warmest day on record yesterday in my area was in 1893. Global warming is a scam.

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ah yes, the people that got us here will surely save us!

give us back our rainforests...