On the flip side, some people reject technological solutions on principle because for them, it's not about solving problems, it's about atoning for the sins of humanity.
What does the alternative future look like where we solve the climate crisis by changing the way we live and organize society? Personally, I would prefer to continue having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet. It seems to me that if we really wanted to, we could keep these things around while putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere. But that's not a satisfying answer for people who have made the climate crisis into a religious issue.
But do we really need to be able to order some bullshit plastic shit from China for 2 dollars? I think it is only fair to give up that for local production, even if that costs 10 dollars for the same thing. Similarly, do I have to eat argentine beef in Europe? Sure, make it available for a hefty price for the rare occasion, but it really should not be generally available. Fruit that is local and is out of season? Don’t import it from Peru, simply wait for it to be in season, or buy some product that was made locally when it was in season, like jam. Strengthening local production would already massively decrease the number of ships we need for minimal inconvenience (hell, it might just be beneficial for the local economy). Do I even have to eat meat each day?
Similary, why don’t we ban most kinds of single-use plastics? How often do you buy milk that you plan on drinking while you walk somewhere? Couldn’t it be stored inside a container you have to bring back to the shop the next time, or buy again if not? Hell, most liquids meant for drinking could easily come in a few sizes of these reusable bottles. We have goddamn shops that can auto-subtract your bought items simply by camera imaging, don’t tell me we don’t have the tech to safely and hygienically refill containers, something we had 100 years ago.
As for societal change: do my parents have to live in a separate house with way too much space for them, having them see their grandchildren only occasionally (making parents having to pay for babysitters)? Only so that they can later be cared for by some random person? Sure, not everyone has parents worth living together with, but this tendency that it is somehow a failure to not move out of your parents home is imo very harmful to everyone involved - parent not having enough self-time, grandparents being alone, slowly deteriorating mentally, children not seeing grandparents enough (also, parents having to figure out parenting from zero).
These are not big sacrifices, but we will do them, one way or another. The question is, do we want to do it with self-agency, or let nature run its course?
You're just following what feels like it would be good for the environment (and maybe it is good for your local environment) but isn't actually impactful at a large scale.
You write eloquently, but futilely.
Instead, what if it's a mindset: Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others.
And you can add to the list (instead of just saying "it won't work").
E.g. high car gas taxes, so there'll be trains, buses and bike lanes instead for everyone.
So do you want governments to legislate that you must live with your parents? Or that you must not eat meat? Otherwise it's fine and good that a small share of the populace will make these choices on their own, but we need an order of magnitude more.
It’s not going to be politically feasible since 99% of people don’t want to live that way. Thus we have to pursue alternatives.
Maybe technology will help us achieve that last minute stop we so need, but we have to start somewhere.
Oh how I wish I could just bring a reusable bottle to some dispenser at the store and refill directly. Milk, common juices, soaps, etc. So many bottles going into trash/recycling all the time.
Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights or "cleansing" populations?
Because I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the alternative is going to be no fun at all. One possibility is that we all end up agreeing that we should at least try to reduce our numbers. My parents brought me up with 'replacement' numbers so that we'd end up with a steady population. I'm not so sure if that was wise. And I'm aware that there are many predictions out there that our numbers will eventually top out (they will, either because we do it ourselves, voluntarily or because our resources will run out, an exponentially expanding population in a fixed environment always ends in collapse).
But unless we manage to massively reduce our impact on the environment I don't see a way for the increased consumption and eventual survival of our societies as we know them today. In another comment someone offhandedly asked whether we should all want leisure yachts or not. The obvious answer to that is 'no'. But we probably also shouldn't all want vehicles and the ability to transport ourselves to the end of the world on a whim. Hard choices are ahead of us, the time for easy answers is long behind us.
Exactly. The dismantling of Roe v Wade in the US comes to mind as a form of severely restricting reproductive rights.
The first thing takes years and we still don’t have feasible technology for the second. Not to mention that we would still have a lot of emissions from transport, manufacture, and meat consumption.
A technological silver bullet would be cool but the reality is that we don’t have one and there’s nothing in the near future. But reducing our consumption is something we can start doing now.
I'm not saying there's a silver bullet, I just think it's our decision as a society whether or not we invest in these technologies and do the work of developing them to the point that they actually have a chance of solving the problem. We were able to make rapid progress on nuclear in the 1940s and space flight in the 1960s. We have the resources, but it doesn't seem like we have the political will this time.
Now imagine it's not just some meaningless project at your job but a matter of life and death for the majority of life on Earth, which do you pursue?
Never encountered that. Maybe it exists but it's extremely rare and irrelevant.
> putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere
Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy...
What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in.
> having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet.
Where in the Paris Agreement did you read we shouldn't continue having those things?
How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere?
>What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in.
The most realistic way to stop destroying the environment is to switch to clean energy. That means spending money, and building a lot more nuclear reactors than we currently have. If the climate is truly an emergency, which I believe it is, then it's worth spending the money.
Because it costs money.
Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper.
Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place.
Carbon capture is a scam.
This is either dishonest or ignorant. We can make a huge difference by moving faster to solar, eating a lot less meat, living in denser settings rather than suburbs, living in smaller houses, switching to heat pumps, not driving huge trucks and SUVs, avoid so much waste particularly in food, driving less, etc.
I agree that we can all do better on our individual choices. But we're not going to convince billions of people to that in the next 10 years. We need to fix the problem now, and the solution is to power our current level of growth with clean energy.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating...
> Personally, I would prefer to continue having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet.
Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, what we came from, and believe we deserve Saturday morning cartoons.
>Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, what we came from, and believe we deserve Saturday morning cartoons.
We came from a history of mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort. I think this nostalgia for the past is a golden age fallacy that needs to die. Technology has vastly improved human life and taking it away is essentially a call for reducing the standard of living for everybody.
The past wasn't sunbeams and frolicking in meadows, but your take on it is totally off base. The fact is that in every period of (Western) history, the wealthy have always lived incredibly comfortable and enjoyable lives. Modern technology isn't the determinant variable. They did it by harnessing their respective civilizations--it was absolutely not equitable. They rested atop a pyramid of other people. And so do you and I! We do not live in equitable times globally. To the extent that we've made any strides morally, it's only that we've substituted technology and industrialization for slavery and oppression. But under no configuration is modern life sustainable for 8 billion people, energy, living space, and raw materials wise, so this situation is going to keep drawing down the reservoir until there is a brutal correction.
I also think your characterization of all of history being "mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort" is frankly tripe. As if native peoples lives (over hundreds of thousands of years, indeed) are such utter trash that they need to be rescued from it by technology. "Oh, the poor brown people living such primitive lives, how sad. Let's do a mission to convert them to consumerism and fill their lives with junk, get them some jobs and atomize their tribes." I invite you to visit basically any place on Earth that is not Europe or North America. It's frankly a white/western superiority complex and technology is just a fig leaf over it, a fundamental belief that today's way of life is the only one worth living and is so obviously superior that it cannot be questioned. I mean, those stupid native Americans and their huts. Good thing we fixed that, right?
So, the first one taking decades and the second one being a meme """solution""" for the science illiterate?
If CDR is a meme solution for the science illiterate, then why does the IPCC include it as a key mitigation strategy?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/spm-headline-st...
>C.11 The deployment of CDR to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved. The scale and timing of deployment will depend on the trajectories of gross emission reductions in different sectors. Upscaling the deployment of CDR depends on developing effective approaches to address feasibility and sustainability constraints especially at large scales. (high confidence)
Complete with language about believers and non-believers
