Positive-feedback has kicked in, so slowing down emissions will achieve very little. Because of positive feedback, even halting emissions might not be enough.
The only possible path I can think of to stem the catastrophe is a two-step plan:
1. The immediate enactment of a global carbon tax, priced high enough to materially reduce carbon emissions, and quickly.
2. Massive investment in sequestration technologies to help us scrub the air of CO2 and methane.
The challenge is colossal. Even if (1) could be done, (2) basically involves un-doing every emission of the past 20 years. Every mile driven must now be driven backwards, every good manufactured must be un-done...and with far more energy than it took the first time (thanks, thermodynamics!). And that energy must come from clean sources. And it must be done quickly; every day the carbon debt accelerates. Note, not grows — accelerates!
A friend once gave me the following metaphor. Imagine you have a glass jar, filled 1/16 with bacteria. The bacteria look up and say "we have plenty of room to grow!". Two weeks later the bacteria are half way up the jar. "Hey, it took us two week to get here, we have time to curb our growth".
The bacteria suffocate in about two hours.
If it helps them lobby their politicians more, then sure. I mean, it doesn't, but if it did I'd take that trade any day.
> On what do you base that?
Purely on a sense of urgency. Individual action will--at best--lower greenhouse emissions by lowering demand for carbon intensive products & practices. How many business cycles does it take for these actions to take effect? We simply don't have decades. As well, a consequence of lowering demand of carbon-intensive products results in...a lowering of the price of carbon/oil. Increasing demand, until the slack is picked up elsewhere. The invisible hand is powerful.
A Co2 tax does the same thing as individual action--it lowers the demand for carbon, except it prevents the price from adjusting down. It is our only hope.
> For example taxes on gas have not been very successful for decreasing the amount we drive even though taxes on gas in many countries are much higher than suggested tax levels for co2.
By definition, then the tax is too low. Demand for gasoline is very inelastic, but it's not perfectly inelastic.
I don't think you understand the urgency. Runaway heating has started. We don't have 20 years. A draconianly high CO2 tax is our only hope.
If you believe that I don’t understand the urgency I was being unclear. What I’m saying is that when I’m been reading more on the subject I have started to believe less in a co2 tax. I much rather have for example draconian building standards because I believe that will give more bang for the buck than co2 taxes.
It's clickbait titled and split into 8 parts, for who knows what reasons, but that quote is the tl;dr version of it. Exponential growth is unintuitive, and chasing endless growth is not going to work out well for us.
Even if the bacteria find another entire jar of open space - as much space as has ever been known, as much space as they have used in their entire history - a fully terraformed Mars hanging out in the back yard previously unseen - it only lasts a single doubling-time.
Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be considered obvious.
The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts.
All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.
If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.
Without fundamental political and societal changes it feels like we're doomed. When big business can buy and amplify speech far more than concerned citizens, democracy won't be able to face/take the action needed.
It's much more important to ship 20,000 tons of Spiderman toys over the Pacific ocean for Christmas presents, only to bury them in a dump, because that's profitable. After all - you don't even buy stuff or spend money on flights or fuel, why should you even have a say or a right to exist at all? /s
Richest 10% are responsible for half of global carbon emissions [0]. I would guess many HN readers belong to top 10%. So what we do matters.
Another good news, apparently takes only 3.5% of the population to take an active stance on something to cause a change [1]
So, don't despair. If you are already started reducing your consumption - it matters. If you haven't - it's never late to start, especially if you are rich (relatively).
And of course individual action is not mutually exclusive with lobbying politicians.
[0] https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w
I cannot express it more eloquently than this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcw-9UBFNWE
It sure doesn't. One person's consumption, no matter how extravagant, doesn't matter even the tiniest tiniest bit.
The only solution is massive, concerted, governmental action.
Just like one car doesn't pollute...
How did we end up in this situation if it isn't an accumulation of individual actions?
Of course individual actions matter, not necessarily because of their direct impact but because of the snowball effect. Look at how green parties started 60 years ago, it was hippies and nut jobs, today they make 10-25% of votes in EU elections.
It is. It's too late to start. In the immortal words of Magnus Carlsen, Too weak, too slow.
I don't believe it. I don't believe cruise ship operators or aluminium smelting companies will change anything based on whether a New York or Sydney person drives less often and nitpicks about plastic food packaging. They need regulating, hard, and that means a worse economy and unhappier people with lower quality of life paying more for goods "for their own good", and that means it won't happen.
I feel it unfair that I should lead the charge to hermit-life eating leafy gruel and nitpicking over plastic lids while my brother flies halfway round the world on international holidays - and he does that because he's annoyed that he should have to care about climate emissions from an occasional holiday while business people fly over the pond for a half-day meeting and while cruise ships exist.
This is the kind of personal feeling the anti-climate-change movement has to address to get people on board, and chastising people "it'll be a catastrophe" isn't enough. I know it feels like it should be enough, but it isn't enough.
not just your reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join you.
Only if I tell them, which I won't. The sort of people who self-promote are driving the bad things of the world - envy, aspirational Instagram lifestyles, consumerism. And the people who tell people "I'm vegan" are the butt of jokes and the hated holier-than-thou preachy people.
The people who actually will reduce their emissions will just quietly do that, like they just quietly check up on an elderly neighbour without making a fuss about how great they are for doing so. Self-sacrifice for the greater good isn't catching like shopping and showing off is.
You will also find after reducing driving, flying, meat, etc, that you'll wish you had changed earlier. You replace those things with other things you like more.
That doesn't follow. My alternatives to driving are worse than driving, otherwise I wouldn't drive right now. And I like cake more than meat - but I don't want to replace meat with cake, thanks, that would be a bad trade.
Im well educated and informed enough to know that anything individuals would do now is pointless..
I also understand that nothing will be done to fix the problem by powers which are able to make a difference ( because its not "profitable").
Humanity as we know it will perish. Thats why I do everything I can to enjoy the ride. Im also preparing my children, by buying properties in safer places (safer in the next 50 years..).
I'm fairly confident that every individual I personally know would react with a bemused "how quaint" if I started riding a bicycle or eating vegan or whatever as a way of fighting climate change. I'm sorry, but I just don't foresee a massive number of people changing their lifestyles voluntarily.
Given these constraints, what provides a greater return on your investment of time and energy? Carving out your own sustainable lifestyle within a system geared towards suppressing your efforts, or getting involved in political organizing to change the system?
Your comment would be just fine without that bit.
Do you have any specific tips on how to lobby the politicians?
Promoting consumtion even more and selling out country treasures (land, forests) to pay for loans ?
And if you try to create new party to promote "not fitting" slogans, you disappear or have "an accident"..
World is a shithole now. Only way is to run away from all of this but not everyone has such possibility and there is not many places to run to.
Eventually large number of people will reduce large amounts of emissions. Corporations, governments, and other institutions will follow.
You will make a difference. You will also find after reducing driving, flying, meat, etc, that you'll wish you had changed earlier. You replace those things with other things you like more.