What's new
By:

The Climate Change Thread

The question is, can the world can reduce emissions without economic tradeoffs and if not, are we as global citizens willing to make those tradeoffs to mitigate climate change.
 
rippimpc said:
The question is, can the world can reduce emissions without economic tradeoffs and if not, are we as global citizens willing to make those tradeoffs to mitigate climate change.
Click to expand...

The answer is no, well not for those of us in the west, are we as the privileged few prepared to make sacrifices for the many? No
 
Rubashov said:
The answer is no, well not for those of us in the west, are we as the privileged few prepared to make sacrifices for the many? No
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. Although, I think the greater problem will be that the global south desires a standard of living on par with the west.

Reducing emissions for the lucky few will be much easier than reducing emissions for the striving many.
 
rippimpc said:
I tend to agree. Although, I think the greater problem will be that the global south desires a standard of living on par with the west.

Reducing emissions for the lucky few will be much easier than reducing emissions for the striving many.
Click to expand...

Well can you really blame the global south for wanting a standard of living that is comparable with their former colonial masters? 25 years ago the discussion was, alternatives, austerity, re-forestry and i forgetting another pillar.... They simple reality is that is we want to reverse climate change we are all going to have to embrace some very unpopular ideas. Alternatives and re-forestry alone will not be enough in the west we will have to change the way we consume water in particular, the worlds consumption of beef needs to be curtailed dramatically, it is hugely water intensive, and is a significant contributor to soil erosion and methane production. It also means for example that scared cows in India will need to be chopped too, not only that but if people want to continue to consume traditional protein, the industrial solution is pork. Work that out with organised religion.

Now Kyoto went some way to addressing this, the particular focus was how to bridge the divide between north and south. This was in direct conflict with the interest of energy producers and manufactures and so naturally Kyoto is completely dead. Profit maximisation is a central pillar of capitalism, this is completely at odds with the technology transfer provisions at the centre of Kyoto. Today's new energy smart fridge sold at Best Buy in SLC, will be sold new in 5 years time in Lagos and in this way corporations extend product life and profits. I'm oversimplifying it but stopping stuff like this was central consideration, cutting the souths carbon footprint as they industrialise.
 
I think physics is the biggest problem. Hard to decarbonize segments of the economy remain hard to decarbonize due to physics.
 
rippimpc said:
I think physics is the biggest problem. Hard to decarbonize segments of the economy remain hard to decarbonize due to physics.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find organic chemistry is more of a thing. The thing with industrialisation the further along the road you go the less raw commodities are used, more plastic and synthetics replace steel and so on. This is a big reason why commodity prices historically fall outside of wartime.
 
Rubashov said:
I think you'll find organic chemistry is more of a thing. The thing with industrialisation the further along the road you go the less raw commodities are used, more plastic and synthetics replace steel and so on. This is a big reason why commodity prices historically fall outside of wartime.
Click to expand...
Interesting, in what way do you mean industrialized economies use fewer commodities? Demand for oil is highest in OECD countries (~13 bbls/person per year vs 3 bbls/person per year in non-OECD).
 
rippimpc said:
Interesting, in what way do you mean industrialized economies use fewer commodities? Demand for oil is highest in OECD countries (~13 bbls/person per year vs 3 bbls/person per year in non-OECD).
Click to expand...

The inputs for things like steel, coal and even oil become less intensive, think about efficiency standards for cars in the last 50 years (That said my 3 cars all suck down heaps of juice, one with the throttle open can drain a 70 litre tank in under 180km). Things like PCs, phones, TV ect use less copper, less gold and so on.
 
Rubashov said:
The inputs for things like steel, coal and even oil become less intensive, think about efficiency standards for cars in the last 50 years (That said my 3 cars all suck down heaps of juice, one with the throttle open can drain a 70 litre tank in under 180km). Things like PCs, phones, TV ect use less copper, less gold and so on.
Click to expand...
Agreed but as people become more wealthy, they don’t statically consume the same as before - they consume more. Efficiency gains are lost to infinite human desire.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Political Jazz Fan said:

View: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1904562019082055771?t=PhcuEFQwV82IRvVqPqf1WQ&s=19
Click to expand...

Climate change isn’t a scam. It’s definitely real. But on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people are going to value access to education, sanitation, food, significantly higher. If those things came at a cost of a plume of co2 every time they need it, they will smash their hand on the button to get their basic human rights. Just like the west has since the Industrial Revolution.
 
rippimpc said:
Climate change isn’t a scam. It’s definitely real. But on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people are going to value access to education, sanitation, food, significantly higher. If those things came at a cost of a plume of co2 every time they need it, they will smash their hand on the button to get their basic human rights. Just like the west has since the Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...
One of the big problems with climate change is nearly every "solution" heavily negatively affects the disadvantaged or causes economic harm with so little benefit as to not come even close to passing a cost-benefit analysis. We could completely destroy the American economy and stop all US carbon emissions and not even make a dent in the stated goals that requires a true worldwide scope. But to do this most African nations in poverty would essentially be destroyed with millions dying from the solution itself. Not to mention China who has zero incentive to do anything to curb their emissions, as well as India. We can whine and cry about it all we want but nothing we do here, no matter how many "carbon offset credits" Al Gore chooses to buy to offset the footprint of his many homes, no matter how much we charge companies to pay for their emissions that get passed on to the consumer in higher prices and still makes not the tiniest debt in real world emission numbers, nothing we do will realistically make any difference. That's the problem no one is willing to actually discuss. Is the Western world willing to fully subsidize the 3rd world nations and bring sanctions to bear to get China and Russia and India and all the other large scale polluters in line? If not then it actually makes little sense to do anything drastic in America that will cause real harm to the middle and lower classes in the name of "climate change" itself. Should we do what we can to curb pollution to protect the integrity of our water supply and air quality and nature in general? Absolutely. But don't get high and mighty about climate change until we are ready to really go all-in, which will feel like a world war and could easily lead to exactly that. It's way way bigger than anyone ever really talks about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top