111–120 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unironically this is how most of the first world thinks while expecting us from the third to completely change our lifestyles and don't we even dare to try to develop the same way you guys did.
Why would you develop your economy like it was the 1800s?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps don't advocate making good things in life shittier in order to make comparatively shit options you happen to approve of look good by comparison? If you want public transport to be an even barely acceptable alternative to cars: - Make it door to door, no connections, no hiking to or from a station/stop/port at either end - Make it on demand, no timetables or shortages - Make it actually show up, and not be sus…
If you want cars to be an even barely acceptable alternative to public transport: - They should not be stuck in traffic jams - They should not kill children, pedestrians and cyclists - They should be electric without heavy and polluting batteries These aren't unreasonable requirements, or some utopia situation. They're all things that trains and subways provide that cars do not. > - Make a ticket cost the same as or…
Also note that your other examples violate my overarching point which is that they're about externalities. They don't represent advantages to the users' near term needs/desires, and in the case of my personal feelings about cyclists are actively in opposition, so they're almost always going to be fighting an uphill battle for mass acceptance.
Some of what the author says is accurate. Carbon offset credits are bunk. Industrial agriculture is harmful. There are environmental issues to a lot of the “greening” practices. There are issues around how equitably the climate change revolution is going to impact different demographics. Some of what the author says is false. Consumer choices do make a difference. I work in climate tech and the product my company pro…
I totally agree! No way China should be able to have price advantages due to lack of manufacturing pollution control. And Mexico makes engine blocks for the north because of the difficulty of getting environmental approval for foundries in the north.
Pollution parity import tariffs will level the playing field and allow low-polluting factories to compete with the high polluting areas that are harming everyone.
> change their behaviors if they had to pay the full price
The imported igadgets and solar panels and baby rockers will be more expensive. If we manufacture at home we can even reduce usage of energy for transporting things from China.
Greening and green-washing are causing a lot of harm. Good on Al Jazeera publishing this article and Kolinjivadi for writing it. More Western publications need to follow suit!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comes across as histrionics based on misinterpreting the worst case predictions to drive yet more unfounded FUD.
If you think about it we are all tempted to ignore a problem and hope that our lives won't be changed. It's very common in history to find resistance to necessary change especially when it's inconvenient.
The article accuses greentech and carbon-credits of genocide: "While guaranteeing high returns, this deception is tantamount to the genocide of the hundreds of millions of people who will perish from the effects of climate change within the next century because things are that bad." That's pretty harsh. But, if you think "things are that bad," let's also consider the moral culpability of people trying to stop the sci…
From my understanding, there's two major issues with geoengineering. 1. You have to keep doing it forever, and likely accelerate the rate at which you do. If rapid decarbonization doesn't happen in tandem, you'll need to be adding more and more aerosols over time. And the second you stop, you get a sudden whiplash climate change event that has a hundred years of warming in one. The risk of that catastrophe isn't wort…
1. "You have to keep doing it forever"
2. "[Stopping] creates a sudden whiplash climate change event"
3. Geoengineering will deplete the ozone
4. Geoengineering causes acid raid
5. Geoengineering causes ocean acidification
6. Fundamentally bad: "one form of pollution to fix the problem created by another"
7. "second and third order effects could be unforeseen and catastrophic"
8. If we use geoengineering, then people won't decarbonize (I'm assuming this is also a concern).
1. We do lots of things forever, like collecting taxes or taking out the trash. So I don't understand that issue. 2. Why would we stop, if it is so important? 3. Open to ozone depletion as a bigger problem, but just by tonnage, it should be 1/3 of the effect described here: https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmos... 4. According to this article, acid rain from geoengineering would be a small fraction of the effect of current industrial pollution: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD011918 5. Ocean acidification is a real concern. But I suspect 2 degrees of warming will much more dangerous to ocean ecosystems. 6. I don't understand the fundamentally bad argument. Neither CO2 nor SO2 are bad chemicals. Our goal should be to moderate the climate; maybe we need one chemical to balance the other. 7. This is my personal opinion, but I think the second and third order effects need to be studied scientifically. The second and third order effects of degrowth are also real. 8. I think a move to geoengineering would be politically advantageous for decarbonization policy. No one wants geoengineering. But if we need it, we need it—and if we might need it, we should study it carefully, scientifically.
From the article: "The supposed energy transition that has been undertaken has seen renewable energy production expanded, but there has been no indication that oil and gas are being substituted and ultimately phased out." That's not going to happen for another 27 years at least. I've said it before: Most people (including those who post here) are staggeringly illiterate when it comes to energy. Hydrocarbons store an…
Meaningful changes like this could happen in well under a year if the political will were there. From there, we could tackle the more difficult challenges you mention of the remaining quarter of oil used for industrial purposes. None of these problems are impossible to solve. Defeatism doesn't do anything to contribute to a solution.
[0] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...
[1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-we-kept-our-cars-p...
Some of what the author says is accurate. Carbon offset credits are bunk. Industrial agriculture is harmful. There are environmental issues to a lot of the “greening” practices. There are issues around how equitably the climate change revolution is going to impact different demographics. Some of what the author says is false. Consumer choices do make a difference. I work in climate tech and the product my company pro…
C.f. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
in which there is an extended discussion of the way that meat production has become dramatically more efficient over the last 30 years but the low price that supposedly reflects this can more accurately be said to be due to new externalities that the industry created (and does not charge the consumer for at the transaction point).
Klein does a good opening monologue about the importance of prices in a capitalist economy, and that while low prices are typically a good thing, they must reflect the true cost of the thing being paid for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on. Could you further elaborate on this take? I'm not interested in challenging you or anything, but the anti-nuclear position is often out of fear of catastophe, so it's refreshing to hear an opinion that it's a dead end.
And why would catastrophe not be a valid reason? How do you suggest we store nuclear waste for thousands of years? What if an accident happens (and they will happen, just like Fukushima and Tschernobyl) and huge amounts of land can't be used for ages? That might be an option for some sparsely populated areas but not for Europe for example. Also, renewables are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear.