Climate change solutions require collaboration between politicians, scientists and entrepreneurs

submitted by ActuallyNot from theconversation.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.

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

Even 50 years after we discovered that global warming is going to be a problem, global oil consumption is still on an ever-upward trend, rising every year with no sign of even leveling off, let alone falling:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265261/global-oil-consumption-in-million-metric-tons/#:~:text=Global%20consumption%20of%20oil%20has,tons%20consumed%20the%20previous%20year.

British Petroleum has estimated that all oil reserves will be drained in about 40 years, at which point it won't be economical to extract anymore.

https://rentar.com/much-oil-used-whats-left-using/

So, basically, in order to avoid the endpoint of "we took all the ancient carbon out of the ground and put it in the air," we'd need to take this five-decade upward trend and not only flatten it out, not only cause it to start decreasing, but actually plunge it into the ground and make it hit zero.

And we'd need to do it all within less than forty years. Probably more like ten. And then the temperature would still continue to rise for decades before finally starting to level off.

It's just completely infeasible, any way you look at it. It's a pipe dream. There isn't time. Politicians don't want to admit that, because it's their job to pretend they can fix any problem. But this one is well beyond their capabilities.

Absent a complete game-changer like a global nuclear war or a pandemic on the level of the bubonic plague, we as a species are going to finish emptying the Earth of its carbon reserves long before we can even turn Spain into a green paradise, let alone South Asia and its two billion inhabitants.

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

I agree that oil consumption is still growing, and CO2 emissions are still growing, and there's 40 or 50 years of proven reserves left for oil.

So, basically, in order to avoid the endpoint of "we took all the ancient carbon out of the ground and put it in the air," we'd need to take this five-decade upward trend and not only flatten it out, not only cause it to start decreasing, but actually plunge it into the ground and make it hit zero.

Don't forget coal. That's easier and more important to leave in the ground.

And we'd need to do it all within less than forty years. Probably more like ten. And then the temperature would still continue to rise for decades before finally starting to level off.

yes.

It's just completely infeasible, any way you look at it. It's a pipe dream. There isn't time.

Everything we do helps a little bit. Burning all the proven oil reserves in 50 years will peak CO2 at a slightly lower level than doing it in 20, because of processes that sequester CO2. OF course 500,000 years would be much better, and the difference would be significant.