A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

[Alphaville]

@mi

i don’t know what you’re talking about, i really don’t, sorry. that web of references makes no sense to me on its own. i’m not saying it doesn’t make sense to you or others—i’m saying that i’m not getting what you’re trying to communicate. sorry.

what i meant by global consensus and enforcement is something like the vienna convention and the montreal protocol which actually has yielded good results in cfc reduction and slowing destruction of the ozone layer to the point that it began to repair itself.

is it a conservative solution to the cfc problem that didn’t require a large bureaucracy? i don’t know how to define the moving goalpost of conservatism anymore—but it was signed and ratified by the reagan and thatcher administrations in the 80s. and it has worked

[white belt]

I found this interview with Art Berman, a petroleum geologist, quite insightful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugj634e4TjM

Berman does cover a bit about the structure of the oil market, but I think the biggest value is his explanation of how oil has driven our economic success as far back as WW2. Additionally it talks about how switching to renewables is not feasible without significantly decreasing energy consumption, which means decreased economic output.

None of his points will be new to folks on this forum, but I do think it's a good basic explanation that even a layman can follow. Maybe something OP can use as a resource for conservative friends to ease them in, especially since the interviewer has an anti big gov't slant.

[Hristo Botev]

@alphaville: I'm admittedly coming from a place of ignorance here, but wasn't/isn't cfc something for which technology could/can provide viable and market-friendly alternatives? Isn't CC just a very different beast than cfc/ozone depletion? I was in elementary school during the ozone layer thing, and I suspect someone has probably studied how, psychologically, our "victory" over CFCs doomed us in regards to CC, because my entire generation grew up thinking that technology really can solve any environmental problem (enter recycling, wind/solar, et al.).

Taking the "conservative" qualification out of the equation, which I said somewhere upstream I've realized was a mistake to include in the first place: don't you see the wheels of society falling off a bit, all around you, little by little? So when you say: we used to be worried about X, but that didn't happen, and so then we were worried about Y, and that was just unfounded fear as well--are you sure that X and Y (and Z, etc.) are in fact not happening--not all at once in some big asteroid BANG; but slowly (unless your timeframe is expanded out more than just in 1 human's lifetime)? I mean you live in a city, right, like I do--doesn't it seem like shit is starting to head south a bit? And I know you can say well, look at the 68 riots, and the Vietnam War, and the Holocaust and WWII, and WWI trench warfare, and Maoist China, and Stalin's Russia, and the Armenian Genocide--shit used to be a lot worse and it's getting better (Pinker?). And I see the truth in that. But is it really. I was raised to believe this myth of constant progress and improvement, and I no longer see that as possible, and I also see evidence of that actually NOT being the case all around me. Or as Jacob and others on this forum have stated elsewhere before, quoting William Gibson: "The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed."

[Alphaville]

how switching to renewables is not feasible without significantly decreasing energy consumption, which means decreased economic output.

i don’t think this is necessarily true in an economy driven by design and innovation where information and efficiency are prized over raw output. eg apple is now bigger than exxon or saudi aramco.

[Alphaville]

Isn't CC just a very different beast than cfc/ozone depletion?

sure, i’m not saying climate change is as easy to solve as cfcs, but it’s an example of a global problem with a global solution. was the solution politically conservative? i don’t know. but it was solved at a global scale (some place in china however someone is cheating, and we know it, thanks to global consensus).

the conservative bit is not a trivial one. i am interested in a climate solution where conservatives could participate willingly. it’s a good question to posit, especially when solutions to the global problem are seen as left/bureucratic/centrally planned. (i’m not sure what the solutions actually are). the lack of a conservative project makes conservatives say there’s no problem. and while i’m neither a leftist nor a conservative, i think we need a conservative solution. we need common ground if something is ever going to work.

also when i said that those catastrophes didn’t happen, i didn’t mean they will never happen. they could still very much happen- or they may never happen—but i can’t know this. my point was about methodology: how we always envision some end of the world, but we focus just on one possible forecast and forget the rest, plus ignore the ones we can’t even fathom. so maybe we need a different/broader strategy altogether.

also i’m not seeing the wheels of society fall off, no. i see change—but it’s not the same as things falling apart. some things improve, others worsen... but i see that more as a matter of taste than of actual objective social reality (but i do see ongoing environmental degradation)

and cities are doing great, cities are in fact being repopulated after the exodus that started in the 50s. in the first decade of this century i left a city i loved because i was priced out by gentrification—people were coming in from the burbs and buying up everything! i had been living in a dilapidated ruin (but it was cheap). compare new york in the 70s to new york today (it was an economic disaster back then, but the art was great). cities have been experiencing a revival for some time now. and covid maybe sent that into a brief detour, but i think that’s just a temporary thing— cities have their emergent properties that aren’t going away.

where things have gone down if anything is in the rural areas, as the american economy relies more on creativity and innovation and services than on resource extraction and low-tech manufacture.

as for progress, etc—the current postmodern attitude began with the postwar really— i mean it philosophical postmodernity. the distrust of reason and modernity and science and technology and industrialization and “progress”—is at least three quarters of a century old. it’s just taken quite a while to unfold in the public consciousness, but cyberpunk writers like gibson were very much are a part of that— their future wasn’t gleaming and shiny and perfect but very messy and stressful and covered in trash. we’ve been inhabiting a postmodern world for a long time now. the jetsons never happened. instead we got hiv/aids and chernobyl and acid rain and the exploding challenger and rush hour traffic. from hiroshima to fukushima, we go sideways or in circles but not forward. even the glorious internet gave us degenerate social media. vico is in, hegel has been out for some time now.

i think perhaps your feeling of social disintegration comes from the loss of that shiny imaginary future? but it’s not a bad thing to lose an illusion. and one doesn’t have to fall into the traps of cynicism or paranoia either (tempting as they are). we can now actually work on what’s here instead of some fiction.
-

eta: on second thought the social disintegration you see is maybe the national disintegration? into 2 societies? urban/rural? design vs manufacture? solar electric vs coal? tesla vs ford? nasdaq vs dow?

[Mister Imperceptible]

I found this interview with Art Berman, a petroleum geologist, quite insightful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugj634e4TjM

To add to @white belt’s link, Art Berman was on Macrovoices with Nate Hagans back in April: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9V3LTxNj4p4

Nate Hagans: Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism

You may also gain insight from Gail Tverberg’s blog: https://ourfiniteworld.com/

[mooretrees]

@mt: Good question; if you figure out an answer, please share it with me.

Right now, I'm just reading what I can. I'm currently reading Peter Kalmus's "Being the Change" book, which I learned about somewhere on this forum, and which I hope will provide some answers. And I'm planning on reading everything Kingsnorth wrote in the last 15 years or so (i.e., once he became a defeatist). Also planning on doing a very deep dive into Wendell Berry, both his fiction and his essays (someone who probably "gets me" better than I get myself gifted me his 2-volume collection of essays a year ago and, shamefully, I've not actually cracked them open yet). Other than that, likely lots of dystopian collapsist fiction, like probably re-reading Dune and Fight Club, reading Parable of the Sower once it arrives at the library (your recommendation!), probably finally reading Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and likely reading more of Heinlein. Certainly interested in any other recommendations.

Yah, reading is up on my list of 'actions' to take while I try and answer this question myself. I was genuinely curious about your approach as you have a different situation than I. As an aside, what do you think of the Catholic Workers? Seems like one part of Catholicism that while they can be VERY liberal, anti-war protesters, also are very much about growing and feeding folks. They have always attracted me, though I'm not likely to return to Catholicism.

I like your list of authors, Wendell Berry has started to creep up in my list of authors. I'm going to return to Gary Snyder and his poetry and essays I think. And keep learning skills of gardening, preserving and mending. Switching away from focusing on money and focusing on time with family is also key.

Kalmus has a documentary on Prime, though I'm guessing you don't have it because of your anti-bezos campaign. Might be worth seeing it once you read the book, I really liked both the book and the documentary.

[Alphaville]

https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate- ... ate-change

eta: https://www.niskanencenter.org/policy/climate/ including: https://www.niskanencenter.org/an-open- ... w-dealers/

[7Wannabe5]

I don’t think this is necessarily true in an economy driven by design and innovation where information and efficiency are prized over raw output. eg apple is now bigger than exxon or saudi aramco.

True, but the reason why both ultra-tech-optimists and ultra-collapse-pessimistic future fiction often reads false to me is that all levels of tech are now entirely intermixed. For instance, a shovel seems like a pretty low tech tool, but any shovel you might buy today was likely designed on a computer and produced with global supply chain materials. OTOH, your new Apple phone was still likely produced in factories built with cement and delivered on a truck burning petroleum.

Whether it is more efficient to grow micro-greens in AI aided high tech aquaculture in city warehouse vs some hippie’s backyard depends on terms considered and larger context of core tools, facilities, and maintenance/replacement supplies needed.

That said, I now believe that we are getting closer to some high tech solutions faster than previously imagined. Scale seems to be very important, because with less concentration of power, small-scale modular design is preferred. OTOH, other possibilities are also in the works:

https://heliogen.com/

Anyways, this is just my take based on current personal experience, reading, intuition. I actually kind of like the idea of U.S. collapsing back into low-tech, small town living, in my lifetime, but if I was emotionally disinterested intelligent alien observing from afar, I would bet on different outcome.

[Alphaville]

i don’t mean in the sense that we’re not going to need cement or steel or copper wire or electricity or calories and protein.

i mean that not needing so much of it can (and will?) be more valuable than needing more of it like we do right now. i mean, in part, that clean air and water become more valuable as they are more scarce. i mean in part that waste and size and overconsumption become more undesirable, shifting economic value.

in the thread about the book by the environmental guy driven to desperation that jacob locked so as not to rehash past discussions, the author cited mentions something like an iphone can replace a large number of devices like a camera, a radio, a tv (do you remember a crt tv? hahahah) a gps navigator, a calculator, a room full of cellulose-based encylopedias, bla bla etc etc (including the phone replacing a trip to go see someone).

because economic value is driven by demand, we can create *more value* with goods and services that are less resource-intensive

we can in fact value their low resource intensiveness *more* than high resource intensiveness,

i.e. a “green” product can be worth more than a “dirty” one. a smart apartment can be worth more than a stupid mcmansion (already is). a carbon fiber bicycle industry can be worth more than a 3-ton truck industry. we don’t need to get rid of all 3-ton trucks because someone is always going to need one—just not so many people need to desire them. cachet can shift from the dumb to the smart this shifting the accounting book value of economic sectors- as already is happening.

eg a passive solar adobe construction can be more highly valued than a mcmansion built with steel and imported concrete. even though smart adobe has less embedded energy and saves more energy in the long run, it has more value and theowners are “richer” than the owners of old-school gas guzzling dinosaur building.

we don’t need to measure value in oil barrels used but oild barrels saved. in fact we’re already shifing things that way.

[tonyedgecombe]

because economic value is driven by demand, we can create *more value* with goods and services that are less resource-intensive

The only fly in the ointment with that is Jevon's paradox. The idea that when you make something more efficient the lower costs increase demand so the overall consumption is higher.

[Alphaville]

The only fly in the ointment with that is Jevon's paradox. The idea that when you make something more efficient the lower costs increase demand so the overall consumption is higher.

that depends. more is not always better or more desirable. e.g. in developed countries it’s the poor that are obese. and people with metabolic disease are the ones that require more medical care, which is expensive.

it’s like the george carlin (?) bit about “cancer is good for the economy.” you could increase the gdp by giving everybody cancer...!

economic value depends on what we value and how we count it and how bad we want things. “my neighbor got pancreas cancer and 3 chemos—i’m going order liver cancer plus 4 chemos and radiation, and grow the economy!” really?

[jennypenny]

The poor are disproportionately obese because of a lower quality diet and lower living standards overall.

I still say we have to raise consumer standards, not lower them, to satisfy people (and cut overall consumption). Fewer/better quality vs. shiny/cheap/plentiful.


eta: If you're looking for policy and not simply trying to convert the masses, mandate a certain number of year a manufacturer must guarantee a product will work and severely fine companies when their products routinely miss the mark, even if they are willing to replace the items for consumers. I think a nudge back towards BIFL would be a good step in improving quality and getting consumers used to the idea of keeping items longterm or having to find a way to dispose of them.

[Alphaville]

The poor are disproportionately obese because of a lower quality diet and lower living standards overall.

I still say we have to raise consumer standards, not lower them, to satisfy people (and cut overall consumption). Fewer/better quality vs. shiny/cheap/plentiful.

exactly! it’s the rich that can afford stuff like “healthy food” and “minimalism” and “heirloom furniture” and “a year without trash” and electric cars and new york lofts.

the poor have to hoard, generate more trash, eat processed, commute longer, and pay way more for heating.

as we grow the “quality” sector we defund the “trashy” one. capitalist creative destruction.

when we count economic output as sheer energy and resource consumption, as that oil guy does, we ignore intangibles like quality and design and intellectual property which can save resources rather than burn them. or good health for that matter (“bad for the economy”).

so it’s a tautology really. he’s just saying “reducing oil consumption will reduce oil consumption.” well duh, mr petroleum geologist—of course that’s what you’re measuring.

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

You are for the most part preaching to the choir with me, but it is also true-ish that, for example, vegans spend more on international travel, and other affluents who stay skinny on grass fed beef, shrimp cocktail, organic green smoothies, and decent wine aren’t exactly minimizing footprint. That’s why I maintain that rule of 1jacob is still best measure, but also tend towards believing that something like barbell rule 80% low tech/20% very high novel tech is likely most optimal allocation within this measure. What frustrates me are moves like now I am primitive camping/doing permaculture to now I am adding a generator and a tractor to the mix. Human can’t seem to keep themselves from reinventing the wheel.

[Alphaville]

even the occasional air travel is more energy efficient than a daily 4 hour commute by single passenger 8 cilinder truck, no?

(“long torturous commutes are good for the economy” )

i’d rather burn kerosene going on vacation than in rush hour traffic and heating a mcmansion 24/7...

but anyway we’re always going to need low tech. in fact, even premodern—it’s how the rich have horses lol.

[7Wannabe5]

Air travel is extremely fuel intensive. I think one cross Atlantic trip is roughly equivalent to year of moderate car commute. That’s why I found it mildly annoying that first essay in Kingsnorth book I picked up was all about his youthful global travel adventures. I did a short Internet course on Energy, Water, and Food cycles which addressed issues of cultural and economic limits, and bit that really struck me was Chinese peasant woman saying she wanted her one daughter to be able to fly to Paris. Everybody wants their one daughter to be able to fly to Paris. Even me, except my daughter prefers something more like Iceland.

[Alphaville]

i gotta run but as i recall efficiency something like 55 miles per gallon per person? better than driving there... bbl..

[7Wannabe5]

New York to Thailand and back = approximately 18,000 miles. Commute of 20 miles, two ways, 5x/week, 50 weeks /yr = approximately 10,000 miles. Walking to your backyard to look at or photograph novel insects with relatIvely expensive high tech tools= less than 1 muffin fuel for you plus maybe maximum $200/$2 x 20 = 2000 miles for tools if depreciated fully in just one year.

[Alphaville]

true dat, true dat. i’m more of a “go live there” than “go visit for a week,” but yeah. i was looking more at a ny to paris trip.

anyway i hate traveling these days, it’s such a pain (but i would definitely relocate to a more interesting place by any means necessary)

i just read that the average american commute is ~1h long (27m one way) but i can’t compute the fuel costs of that nonsense. so much wasted life.