IPCC Report

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE »


ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by ThisDinosaur »

jennypenny wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:58 am
The environment could be the one where multinational corporations usurp power from nation states. If Bezos and Friends ever decides to try to tackle the climate change issue instead of space travel, they could develop/wield significant power. IMO they are vainly wasting their golden moment ...
...
Tesla. Tesla is a tech billionaire's attempt to affect global warming by reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
Also, Bezos has donated money to Bill Gates' clean energy group "Breakthrough Energy Coalition."

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by ThisDinosaur »


BWND
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:08 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BWND »

@Riggerjack

There are plenty of examples of governments enacting policies that are in the long term interests of its citizens and against the short term vested interests.

- The minimum wage
- Many European countries with universal healthcare
- Children not being sent to work in the mill
- Many existing environmental laws. For example, it would be in the short term vested interest of big industries to dump waste into the rivers but this doesn't happen.
- The laws of the road
- The smoking ban

The list is long.

What is important to remember is that governments will always be influenced, one way or another, by vested interests. The US seems to have a particularly pronounced mistrust of the government, picking up on Jacob's point above, without people actually looking for the vested interest. When a government is dominated by the vested interests of corporate america with it's short term vested interest to drive profits, then you get policies skewed towards those interests. It hasn't been as extreme in Europe, hence some lingering faith. But look at Brexit, the rise of the far right and it's heading that way.

Take many of those points above. Before they were brought in people predicted carnage. A minimum wage would trash the economy. A smoking ban will kill the bar industry. Pressure from certain groups saw them brought in and now people would be astonished to sit in a restaurant beside someone smoking in those countries. In fact it's often incredible how normalised it becomes. In fact, the UK fairly recently made it mandatory for most shops to charge you 5 pence if you wanted a plastic bag. After 2 weeks of moaning, people just brought their own bags.

It takes concerted effort of lobbying, protest, hard work etc to get changes but those changes can have profound impacts. One shift in legislation can change behaviours on a grand scale. If you think of government as essentially tofu i.e. a carrier of whatever flavour is thrown at it, then you can see the scope for huge positive actions by government.

NOW! My caveat,

This is where I somewhat slide around to your strategy, and in many ways your views... In my day to day life I see too many people that are just too many Wheaton levels away from being able to comprehend the changes that are required. And in fact are too many levels away from understanding the impact they might have. These are the "you need to drink milk to make your bones strong" crowd or the "you can't eat rice for breakfast, it's not a breakfast food" crowd. Basically, it's not governments' inability to act, it's the incapability of people to act to preserve their long term interest and recognising that state level is the quickest way to do it because their opinion has been captured by the short term vested interests.


Conclusion

This was a rambling, incoherent mess of a post, at the end of which I might have convinced myself that there are two solutions.

1) Stalinism - a group of vested environmental interests seizing power globally in a coup and forcing radical, death-ridden change
2) Double down on ERE, close the loops, move to the forest or the place with the biggest guns.

:o

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Riggerjack »

@ Noal:

The minimum wage
popular, involving zero obvious citizen sacrifice.

- Many European countries with universal healthcare
popular, involving zero obvious citizen sacrifice.

- Children not being sent to work in the mill
popular, involving zero obvious citizen sacrifice.

- Many existing environmental laws. For example, it would be in the short term vested interest of big industries to dump waste into the rivers but this doesn't happen.
popular, involving zero obvious citizen sacrifice.

- The laws of the road
popular, involving zero obvious citizen sacrifice.

- The smoking ban
popular, involving zero citizen sacrifice from the nonsmoker.

Do you see a pattern here? How is that going to fly when we tell people to walk instead of drive their SUVs? I don't think we agree on how deep the cuts need to be, just to slow the damage, let alone just not making life worse.

People will sacrifice, if it's short term, if it's a strong enough virtue signal, or if they can make rivals sacrifice more. Which of those do you think applies to CC?
What is important to remember is that governments will always be influenced, one way or another, by vested interests.
How would one separate vested interest from government actions? I have never, ever seen one without the other. Sometimes the vested interests were corporate, sometimes bureaucratic, but actions don't happen without motivation.

I understand that it is fashionable to think governance would be pure and true but for those big money interests, messing everything up. This fits the evidence, sorta. A similar fit can be had with a different model. That Congress exists to extort businesses. As in, "Nice business you have there. We're going to review the regulations in that industry. It would be a shame if your interests weren't protected..." From the perspective of a citizen, the actions look the same. Money moves, and interests are protected. And it explains why a Senate seat commands such a high price come election time.

I certainly don't know which is true, and don't much care. I simply consider government actions to be the pattern, without breaking out motivation of parties. It's just a more accurate predictor to consider government actions than what government could be if we were to remove the parts we find distasteful using mechanisms that never worked out before.

But really, this isn't about government. It's about CC. And if there is a realistic approach to governments working together to resolve this in any way that looks different from Kyoto and Paris, I am not aware of them.

So I simply expect that pattern to continue until it's way too late. So I will align my actions as though there were no substitute paternal force that will make everyone behave in alignment with my ideas of their long term interests. You know, working on it myself.

Again, I fail to understand why this is controversial. It seems very simple, direct, and nobody gets forced to sacrifice anything, whether I am right or wrong. What's the problem with that again?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE »

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:39 am
@brute
Did you mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer. ?
no. but decent movie.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE »

Noal wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:25 pm
There are plenty of examples of governments enacting policies that are in the long term interests of its citizens and against the short term vested interests.

- The minimum wage
lol. the one example ridiculed by pretty much all economists why populism doesn't lead to good solutions.

maybe the minimum wage hasn't "trashed the economy" - but it certainly has disenfranchised poor and minority workers.
Noal wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:25 pm
What is important to remember is that governments will always be influenced, one way or another, by vested interests. The US seems to have a particularly pronounced mistrust of the government, picking up on Jacob's point above, without people actually looking for the vested interest.
When a government is dominated by the vested interests of corporate america with it's short term vested interest to drive profits, then you get policies skewed towards those interests. It hasn't been as extreme in Europe, hence some lingering faith. But look at Brexit, the rise of the far right and it's heading that way.
yes, brute completely agrees - government will always be influenced, one way or another, by vested interests. thus a skepticism of government seems extremely healthy and reasonable to brute. in this regard, he considers the US far ahead of Europe and other "government-trusting" societies.

brute is unclear on how the vested interests of one group are more morally valid than those of another, and he is not particularly averse to corporations. if the vesting interest of corporations in the government is not desired, but keeps happening, maybe the power of government should be reduced.
Noal wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:25 pm
In fact, the UK fairly recently made it mandatory for most shops to charge you 5 pence if you wanted a plastic bag. After 2 weeks of moaning, people just brought their own bags.
brute pays the 5c - and then throws the bag away. fighting fascism one bag at a time.
Noal wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:25 pm
It takes concerted effort of lobbying, protest, hard work etc to get changes but those changes can have profound impacts. One shift in legislation can change behaviours on a grand scale. If you think of government as essentially tofu i.e. a carrier of whatever flavour is thrown at it, then you can see the scope for huge positive actions by government.
brute sees the government less like tofu, and more like a monopoly on violence. it can achieve practically nothing but forcing humans to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, which is almost always worse than not doing it.

different interest groups can capture the government to kick the other groups in the teeth to their own benefit, but no matter who captures the monopoly on violence, it's always bad.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Jin+Guice »

Few things are as depressing to me as this thread or, more accurately, what the future holds if the predictions in this thread are correct. From what I understand we are basically fucked because of the quote from 7w5 about middle class lifestyles. This leads to the outcome that Jacob is talking about (outcomes specified in the report). If these are to be believed than the courses of action that make sense are either A) Riggerjack's, which is try to find a grass roots level way to strengthen your tribe so you're ready when the SHTF or B) extreme hedonism because we're already fucked and most of us are old enough that we might die right before shit gets really bad.

What I'm getting from following other climate change debates on this forum and this thread is that our entire way of life is untenable. Not only our way of life but our parents way of life and probably our grandparents way of life too (maybe our great grandparents did it sustainably?). To enact the changes necessary to stop global warming I would have to change so much that I wouldn't even be recognizable to myself as me anymore. Add on to that that even if I did enact these changes I would have to convince millions of other people, many of whom don't believe there is any chance there is a real problem, to change before it would make one ounce of difference. It's really a knife right in my bleeding heart to realize that I'm unwilling to take the necessary steps to prevent a likely doomsday scenario which is the fault of myself and everyone like me.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE »

brute's just not that into the self-flaggellation aspect of climate change. i.e. most of it.

Saltation
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:20 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Saltation »

There are a multitude of solutions and not one is likely to be implemented on the scale needed to resolve the problem. Market forces are not going to solve this issue due to obvious reasons. Environmental forces have a delayed response to our destruction and as a result will not provide negative feedback quickly enough to impact change for the next several decades. Government solutions only aggravate the problem because of historically low trust/faith in the government. Grassroots solutions (ERE) that incorporate waste reduction, mindful spending and systems thinking appear reasonable but do not resolve the issue because of people of its ineffectiveness to scale.

I have yet to find any proposal that keeps the wealthy wealthy and improves the lives of the poor over the next 40 years. As a result human activity will continue as is. Individuals such as myself are not going to quit driving trucks or eating meat. Collapse will occur and human activities will change. I'm 30 years old and will be spared most of the consequences of these current actions. I will not give up a lifetime of hunting, fishing, camping and traveling because of the consequences of climate change. I will not limit my children's exposure to these activities and their associated impact on the environment because of future climate change. I keep in line with basic measuring stick that total spending is a decent indicator of total damage done. Our family spends much less than the average family. I am contributing less to the problem than many others. I am unlikely to make any MAJOR changes unless market forces require because I am still playing the game.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by jacob »

20sharkall03 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:06 am
Grassroots solutions (ERE) that incorporate waste reduction, mindful spending and systems thinking appear reasonable but do not resolve the issue because of people of its ineffectiveness to scale.
I wouldn't write ERE off just yet. Even if we're talking about FIRE peaking, we're at least getting into the mainstream. When I started ERE, I estimated that maybe 1 in 1000 had heard about the concept of FIRE. A few years ago, MMM estimated 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 (I forget). But now, I'd say it's 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 or as many people who can name a supreme court justice which is sort of the peak of intellectual development for random humans and as much can be expected :-P If 1 in 10 is doing it, that's enough for every family to have one family member to copy(*), like an aunt, brother, or cousin, or some such.

Traditional high-income FIRE is the gateway to ERE and mass adoption of ERE would cut worldwide consumption in half (most consumption sit in wasteful forms in the developed world). FIRE would bring us to what's needed at the year 2030 milestone. The 2050 milestone which is zero net-emissions would be a very different world. Traditional FIRE would not work for that (there's no mass industry to buy from and mass industry is unlikely with alternative energy sources). I can't say if ERE would work. What I can say is that such a world/behavior would take time to learn and ERE (individuals) are far ahead of the curve here.

Also "Transition Towns" was actually mentioned explicitly in its own "box" in the 1.5 report as an example solution of grassroots initiative. Whereas last report, the idea that spending and consuming less was only mentioned in a single paragraph as "changed consumer behavior might contribute" or some such. TT has IIRC been around for 15-20 years. This indicates the slow nature of these massive reports. It's not like some people haven't been thinking about it. It just takes a lot of time for ideas to spread.

(*) Mea culpa though ... because while I am easy to copy for you guys or people who read the newspaper, my actual family only have a semi-clue about how FIRE/ERE systems work. We still look and act "conventionally" because it's simply easier not to have the discussion :oops:

prognastat
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by prognastat »

@Jacob

I think most/all of us know how hard it is to convince others even when you are a living example. Often it's easier to just appear "relatively" normal.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Riggerjack »

Note to Humanity:
There are a multitude of solutions and not one is likely to be implemented on the scale needed to resolve the problem. Market forces are not going to solve this issue due to obvious reasons.
Plus:
To enact the changes necessary to stop global warming I would have to change so much that I wouldn't even be recognizable to myself as me anymore. Add on to that that even if I did enact these changes I would have to convince millions of other people, many of whom don't believe there is any chance there is a real problem, to change before it would make one ounce of difference. It's really a knife right in my bleeding heart to realize that I'm unwilling to take the necessary steps to prevent a likely doomsday scenario which is the fault of myself and everyone like me.
is an Opportunity. People want to do what can't yet be done.

And the tragedy is the people who most want it, are the people least interested in harnessing those economic forces to their goals.

This is a luxury market with more demand than supply. It is ripe for a second tier product. Something beyond what DIYers have done so far on their own.

sky
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:20 am

Re: IPCC Report

Post by sky »

The appropriate response to climate change is to discard commonly accepted moralities and live a life dedicated to calculated hedonism while reducing one's environmental impact to a fraction of an average person's impact.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE »

agreed to disagree

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Jean »

All taxes are theft, but all pollutions are destruction of property, which is theft.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by BRUTE »

+1

Optimal_Solution
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 4:56 pm

Re: IPCC Report

Post by Optimal_Solution »

If we don't take steps towards solving the cause, won't we eventually turn to geoengineering to mask the symptoms? Depending on the technique, all it takes is one rouge nation or billionaire to start us down that path.

Couldn't this push out collapse for several additional generations? That might buy us time to develop the technology for a true solution. Or not.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by jacob »

Once nations start going hungry, rogue geo-engineering might be used as leverage, by nations who have nothing to lose anyway. Other nations will refer to it as "climate terrorism" and act accordingly. The political dynamics will be similar to the one that exists today in the energy-sphere except the countries will be different. However, when a sufficiently powerful nation decides to go rogue, the situation could go nuclear.

Geo-engineering won't postpone collapse as such. Climate change exists on multiple dimensions so it's not just irradiation (and temperature). It should be thought of more like taking a pill with side-effects ... requiring other pills for those side-effects ... leading to a cocktail of a problem. E.g. pumping out stratospheric aerosols will block sunlight but it won't change ocean chemistry.

Also, geo-engineering can't be abruptly stopped lest the "withdrawal" be worse than the disease. Essentially, geo-engineering is presuming that humans are capable of setting up a techno-political infrastructure to keep the effort going for many hundreds of years. That's a tall order for a species that can't even agree where to put its nuclear waste or demonstrate the foresight to control its own birthrate.

So of course humans are going to go for it!

prognastat
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: IPCC Report

Post by prognastat »

Or we can just mine a giant ice cube from a comet and drop it in the ocean every so often to cool down the planet.

Locked