Submitted by filosoful t3_11wl83z in Futurology
ZoeInBinary t1_jcywm88 wrote
Reply to comment by filosoful in UN climate report: Scientists release 'survival guide' to avert climate disaster by filosoful
Every single mitigation plan assumes governments, corporations, and the voting public will sign on.
I have yet to see evidence that this is possible. There's just too much momentum, too much money, and too many people wilfully, constantly refusing to change their course, for this plan to become reality.
Maybe that makes me a doomer, maybe a realist, I don't know. But I don't believe for even a second that we'll avoid disaster.
topazsparrow t1_jcyy75j wrote
There's also too much distrust, and too many powerful people with their own motives.
Daddo55 t1_jczo0d7 wrote
Having the “elite” show up to Davos in private jets is about as hypocritical as you can get. Maybe Leo on his mega yacht is worse.
newest-reddit-user t1_jd2brf8 wrote
I'm so sick of this talking point as if it wasn't seeded by elites who don't want to do anything about climate change in the first place. It's completely obvious and transparent, but perfect for them.
They can, after all, just continue to use their private jets and yachts without worry, because normal people won't want to do anything about it because, hey, the elites have private jets and yachts, so why do anything about climate change?
It's pathetic, really.
Daddo55 t1_jd2zskz wrote
If the leaders who are promoting climate change aren’t doing anything personally to fight it, it’s hypocrisy plain and simple.
newest-reddit-user t1_jd42it0 wrote
Nobody is promoting climate change, except oil executives.
But so what if it's hypocrisy? Who benefits from you deciding that climate change doesn't matter because of it? The same hypocrites!
If it was up to me, private jets and yachts would be illegal (or severely taxed so that the outcome would be similar) for climate reasons. Why aren't they? Because there is no strong political movement to fix it and a big reason for that is nonsense like you are peddling.
Daddo55 t1_jd43igb wrote
Agree on the jets and yachts. If govt was serious on climate change, they would tax the shit out of them.
newest-reddit-user t1_jd46xsj wrote
Yes, but they aren't because people aren't making them—and a lot of people do not take climate change seriously because the "zone has been flooded with shit" to borrow a phrase.
r0bdaripper t1_jd36njy wrote
Regardless of who started it, the point remains the same. When you preach to the world about cutting these things out to save it but show up in a multimillion dollar private jet the message falls flat.
Change doesn't come from people yelling and screaming about it, change comes from doing the thing you want others to do.
jeerabiscuit t1_jd2x7z3 wrote
Covid was dress rehearsal.
Daddo55 t1_jd2zwe2 wrote
Hope not. Covid was an absolute cluster fuck of bullshit measures that did nothing but make big pharma $$$$$.
kinzer13 t1_jd1ix76 wrote
It's really not.
altmorty t1_jcz0bcx wrote
Global covid response is evidence.
ZoeInBinary t1_jcz4b2p wrote
Global covid response was halting, half-assed, and resulted in millions of idiots mainlining horse meds instead of following official mitigation protocol.
Only the most authoritarian of countries were able to even temporarily control the spread, and they were effectively undermined by the Freedumb Corps.
If anything, it's evidence for how hopeless this fight really is.
altmorty t1_jczgica wrote
>Global covid response was halting, half-assed, and resulted in millions of idiots mainlining horse meds instead of following official mitigation protocol.
By "global", do you actually mean America? Pretty sure millions of idiots weren't taking horse meds globally.
Saving millions of lives and creating vaccines in record times, using break through tech, isn't indicative of hopeless.
I'm guessing no amount of evidence will be enough for doomers like you.
ZoeInBinary t1_jczid5r wrote
Horse meds were a largely American problem, but countries such as Russia, Brazil, and India had an equally rough time combating the pandemic. Even China, with their take-no-prisoners authoritarian response, in the end couldn't contain the spread.
Which is my point. We can't depend on a few smaller nations taking needed actions; to beat climate change, we need action from everyone, including the Americas and Brazils and Indias of the world. Particularly considering how much American consumption policy influences global production...
RenterGotNoNBN t1_jd015ib wrote
You'd need straight up rationing and martial law.
Probably wouldn't change my life significantly, tbh.
kadmylos t1_jczioo7 wrote
The vaccine was a pro-market solution. We gave money to companies to help them make more money. That's why it worked. How is it possible to do the same with fossil fuels?
silvusx t1_jczu90z wrote
Fossil fuel become too scarce and expensive will shift the change. When the gas price was high, people were finding ways to reduce gss consumption. Apps like GasBuddy have more users. Google map started implementing fuel saving routes.
The problem is, it'll prob be too late if we wait for the gas reserve to dry up. Goverment subsidized people to trade their gas guzzler cars for a electric car would be a start.
Lightning6475 t1_jd0fada wrote
By making renewable more profitable. The price of solar and wind has gone way down this past decade. EV prices are coming down too and will be around the same price as a regular ICE car.
kadmylos t1_jd21shv wrote
But being more profitable doesn't mean that there won't still be a niche for the less profitable commodity. As long as there's money in the ground, someone will figure out a way to dig it up and burn it.
Lightning6475 t1_jd2q7jv wrote
If it cost more to dig up the ground for oil, than they’re not making a max profit and that’s just a bad investment
Diaperbarge t1_jczah7y wrote
If we can not work together (which we clearly can not) to take care of the one planet that literally gave us everything, maybe we do not deserve to still live on it in 100-200 years.
Lightning6475 t1_jcyxn1q wrote
Tbf, renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuel. At some point in the the next couple year it’ll be more profitable to produce renewable energy than keep relying on Fossil Fuels
Differently t1_jd0hv9a wrote
Already there. Fossil fuels are only sustainable through massive subsidy. Coal in particular is sucking up tax dollars.
CakeRobot365 t1_jd17tmi wrote
I'd agree with that statement. I believe there is too much money to be made by people who aren't willing to make the change, and they have enough control to prevent it.
There are also a whole lot of people that think all of the climate change stuff is fake. That's not going to help matters.
Artanthos t1_jd2rdk8 wrote
Pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere could be done unilaterally, cheaply, and quickly.
It’s a last ditch effort, but it’s results would be immediate and global.
ML4Bratwurst t1_jd328p3 wrote
Wasnt that the end of the world in Matrix?
Artanthos t1_jd381a0 wrote
Volcanos have been doing this periodically for Earths entire history.
Mt. Tambora’s eruption in 1816 lowered global temperatures by ~1^• F for a year.
Anything done by humans would have to be done in a more controlled manner.
ThisElder_Millennial t1_jd328xq wrote
That is a legitimate idea and one that could work. The problem is that once you start, you can't stop. If nations did that unilaterally, it takes the impetus off of states who aren't making CO2 cuts/sequestrations to continue with business as usual.
Artanthos t1_jd37dvy wrote
Cost/benefit analysis.
Which option is worse will depend on the extent of the climate change.
ThisElder_Millennial t1_jd38p29 wrote
I'm mainly talking about how this will be a free rider problem. Geoengineering isn't free and has to be continually maintained. The issue is that since everyone will benefit, there isn't the incentive to contribute to the cause. Or, assuming the end goal is to eventually ween ones self off of geoengineering, free riders will have to be "strong-armed" (for lack of a better term) into going carbon zero (or carbon negative). Otherwise, once one of more parties stop the practice, we'll be right back at square one in regards to problems.
Artanthos t1_jd399lm wrote
I don’t disagree.
But if it comes down to a question of survival and it’s too late for other options, this is the fail safe.
It will cause problems, including acid rain. It will have free riders, it will reduce food production due reducing sunlight, and it will disrupt global weather patterns.
Eristotle t1_jd35m82 wrote
yes and sulfur dioxide would also create acid rain and result in less crop yield
use calcium carbonate instead and you lose the acid rain and gain a marginal improvement to ocean acidity tho you still get lower crop yields with any solar dimming
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments