American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…
A solution that does not provide for greater energy consumption per capita over time is not a solution. It was never going to work out any other way. If you want to make a difference, clean energy is the path to follow. That, and carbon capture so we don't spend the rest of our lives in a worsening situation.
A 3°C world has no safe place
221–230 of 291 posts
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#222American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…
We are the lifelong chain-smoker who, when diagnosed with lung cancer, chooses to keep smoking because of a misguided belief that "at least I'll die happy".
The attitude has been around since before tobacco and is commonly ascribed to Boomers. With justification. (Disclosure: I am one.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8s_moi,_le_d%C3%A9luge
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear could have already replaced coal by now. Renewables need a lot of battery storage and transmission to scale up to not relying on coal any longer, since a majority of it is relying on the sun and wind.
Nuclear is such a horrible replacement. Let's let future generations deal with the waste from the power that sustained our lifestyle. I hate it. I'd rather live with less.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Living more efficiently obviously saves money . The absurdities of what's happening is literally the Sierra Club opposing density in San Francisco. The environmentalist are literally opposing density across California . Los Angeles, to San Francisco, to Marin County, under the banner of "preservation," we're going to destroy the climate. I just, i cannot believe this is happening. They same people who would hand wash…
>They same people who would hand wash a peanut butter jar, to recycle it, are the exact same people who are literally creating suburban cities designed for burning carbon. Scoofy, I cannot overstate how much pure, cynical joy I feel after reading your rants here. Thank you for cutting through the bullshit; you're doing God's work.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because climate is a chaotic system and nothing, nowhere, will be 'slightly milder'. You are mistaken. It ain't about a minor shift in baseline plus sea-level changing, though sea-level changing is still a thing. I'm IN the Northeast, not far from Albany. The crazy swings are less and less occasional and that's a trend that continues to escalate. I consider the location pretty much optimal. That's a far cry from…
Seattle is sometimes pointed to as a “climate sanctuary”. A couple of weeks ago it was 108° here in Seattle. Let me repeat that: a hundred and eight degrees. In Seattle. Our reaction as a city: air conditioning installation is booked out for months.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
The American development pattern is the problem that we can actually solve. If you genuinely care, and this isn't pandering, read the book Strong Towns. Our cities are designed as inefficiently as possible, on purpose, and things like zoning and automobile infrastructure literally ban climate conscious living spaces. We should also at least have a carbon tax for things like normalizing beef as an alternative rather t…
Other than world war, what mechanisms do you propose to get China, India, and the entire 3rd world on to an effective carbon tax plan? I mean, if the answer is world war, I’ll at least give you credit for an honest answer. I just rarely see that come up. The truth is yes we can and should do better, but also realize that other nations will take any advantage they can, including ignoring climate concerns. So if it’s a…
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wait for all migrants from places that will be becoming uninhabitable.
When is this projected to happen, realistically? 100 years from now?
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#228American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#229American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…
I don't know who you're referring to as 'we' but in the US, carbon emissions have actually peaked in the early 2000s and decreased in an absolute sense since then, despite growing population and industrialization. We're currently at 1986 emission levels. US has 15% of global emissions, while China has 28% and is growing in both per person and absolute. I don't think you're wrong to be cynical about tackling this prob…
The US's emissions per capita is more than 3 times the worldwide average. So we still need to cut our emissions by a factor of 3 just to be average. But considering we are the richest country in the world, I think it's reasonable we attempt to display some leadership by having below average emissions. And that's not even mentioning that the fact that of course current worldwide emissions per capita are far too high, so we really need to cut even more.
Meanwhile, China's emission per capita are roughly half that of the US.
Even considering the the meager progress made by the US in the past decades to reduce emissions, we are still the 4th most emitting nation per capita.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but you should be honest about what reducing emissions means to billions of people that are just now coming into the industrial age. Isn't that part of the point? If the US has maintained per capita emission levels that would be ruinous if the rest of the world joined us at, can you really say "we" are done with anything? OP listed a bunch of specific things, moderate efficiencies and switching to natural gas are g…
I don't get what you're asking. US emissions per capita have been going down considerably since ~2000 without too much prodding or political will. As have Europes. If you look at the chart, there are only three countries with growing per capita emissions and that's China Russia and India, but most dramatically China. I don't see your point refereeing the past emissions of the US as some kind of moral victory against…
In fact, the EU is in the process of doing this right now, and China is definitely reacting to it (not happy, but it seems like the Chinese government is looking toward expanding their existing policies to cover more industries in an attempt to avoid the EU border adjustment).
Another way to look at it is that given how much the USA has already contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, China would need to continue at their current levels for another 30 or so years before they catch up with us -- and that's with about 4x the population.
I understand that that argument may not be persuasive to some, though, because a lot of the manufacturing and technological development that took place in the USA over that time benefited many countries. And a lot of those emissions took place prior to the wide knowledge of how serious climate change is.
So I'd really say that we should aim for net zero emissions because it's the right thing to do. Everyone has to do it, and it's not going to happen if we all stand around waiting for someone else to go first. There is a pretty massive amount of emissions cutting we could do without much effort at all, and if the rest is spread out over a number of years, the cost will be very small, and will have a lot of benefits to people's health. (Climate change is not the only negative externality of burning fossil fuels by a long shot.)
The place to start is a carbon tax. I highly recommend that everyone who cares about climate change call congress (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-ab...) and ask them to support a carbon tax.