We *Need* to stop climate change

[lajoswinkler]

What saddens me deeply is that in discussions such as this, there are always two main types of participants:

a) opposition to change because of general/political/religious ignorance; "planet has always been changing"; etc.

support to change, but almost total lack of knowledge and endorsement of stupid, ill-advised ideas about plastering solar panels everywhere; hippie crap; etc.

So it's difficult to discuss this when you have to fight more than one side.

[Drunken Hobo]

More like crashing at 39.9998 mph instead of 40. And how do you know it's "better"? What are the costs in the meantime for imposing a crash effort (assuming you could, which you can't)?

How many additional people would die in the name of "slowing global warming"? I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd be willing to lay down huge money that you've never considered that angle. Unintended consequences and such...

For that matter, how do you even know there's a "crash"? Climate has been changing since the dawn of time, and the planet has always corrected itself.

The idea that "attempting something you know you can't do at any cost is better than doing nothing" is a logical fallacy.

Congratulations, you've hit global warming denying bingo. You managed to cram "What if it's good?" "You can't change it anyway!" "It's natural!" and "It isn't even happening!" into one post. I think that's a record.

I also tend to abandon discussions when people start trying to tell me what my own thoughts are on a subject. There's no point in discussing something with someone who is only interested in debating a straw man.

- - - Updated - - -

The only way we might have some kind of impact is to stop using fossil fuels completely. Re-planting trees to compensate for fossil fuel use is a lie!

Lets say you use fossil fuels and emit 1000 tons of CO₂. Now you plant a new forest in order to absorb those 1000 tons worth of CO₂. Nice and clean you might think, the total sum is zero. WRONG! No matter what you do with those trees eventually they will either rot or burn, releasing all the captured CO₂ back in to the atmosphere.

Or just plant a new tree when the old one dies? That's how forests work!

[Guest]

You obviously live in a big city. (Most likely Europe) The closest public transportation for me is almost 10km away. And it's in the opposite direction of my job. Sorry, I'm not not walking 10km to get on a bus to go to the store, only to carry my groceries on foot 10km to my house.

It only proofs that 75 is less then 100.

[GoSlash27]

Congratulations, you've hit global warming denying bingo. You managed to cram "What if it's good?" "You can't change it anyway!" "It's natural!" and "It isn't even happening!" into one post. I think that's a record.

I also tend to abandon discussions when people start trying to tell me what my own thoughts are on a subject. There's no point in discussing something with someone who is only interested in debating a straw man.

Generally speaking, rejecting somebody else's argument out of hand isn't furthering your own, particularly when you haven't supported your own argument or disproven mine.

Do we know whether this global climate change spells the doom of human civilization? No.

Can we do anything to stop it? No.

Do we know that the "cure" (not really a cure) isn't worse than the disease? No.

These answers need to change if you ever want to make a coherent case.

Best,

-Slashy

[segaprophet]

Rising sea levels on the coast and severe drought inland, combined with unsustainable population growth, will lead to extreme global crises and conflict for diminishing resources within the next half century.

I'm only one person, I can't do anything to stop it. What I can do is prepare for my own wellbeing. That's why I practice bushcraft and prepping. That's why I take every opportunity to become more self-sustaining.

Technology got us into this mess. Anyone who thinks technology can save us from it is being naive. The world of the future is going to be more crowded, dirtier, more violent and more lawless.

Edited March 8, 2015 by segaprophet

[Bill Phil]

The only way we might have some kind of impact is to stop using fossil fuels completely. Re-planting trees to compensate for fossil fuel use is a lie!

Lets say you use fossil fuels and emit 1000 tons of CO₂. Now you plant a new forest in order to absorb those 1000 tons worth of CO₂. Nice and clean you might think, the total sum is zero. WRONG! No matter what you do with those trees eventually they will either rot or burn, releasing all the captured CO₂ back in to the atmosphere.

Ecosystems replenish themselves...

Eqch tree will have more than one offspring. This means that your forest is growing.

The problem is really the fact that forests take time to grow, and take up space.

[GoSlash27]

Ecosystems replenish themselves...

Eqch tree will have more than one offspring. This means that your forest is growing.

The problem is really the fact that forests take time to grow, and take up space.

True. The space requirement isn't a big deal to us, but a major problem for the 3rd world. For them, it's either slash and burn to plant crops or starve.

Best,

-Slashy

[Starwhip]

I went to a community thing on Miami Beach called "Filmgate Interactive" about a month ago. This year was all about rising sea levels and what needs to/should be done. The people who organized the event brought in a meteorologist to "explain" what was happening. He showed us a bunch of slides about what Miami would look like in ten, fifteen, thirty, 100 years. It was bad. He told us that "together, we can find a solution to stop the sea level rise".

And then he said that the Antarctic Ice Sheet was melting and we cannot stop it, and it would put about twelve feet of water into all the oceans worldwide.

So, first we need to make sure these government people have it straight in their heads that we can't stop it, and to stop telling people we can so that they don't feel like they don't have to take responsibility for their actions!!!

[Vaporo]

I'm not sure even that would do the trick. People were clearcutting and burning a lot of trees back then.

Well, if we all chose to live like it was 1515, we could stop it, if coupled with that we let the rain forests come back.

It bugs me when people talk about the amount of CO2 reprocessing that trees do. The fact is, something like 75% of the earth's CO2 reprocessing comes from algae in the oceans.

Also, the OP mentions that humanity releases 10 billion metric tons of CO2 in a year. According to my quick, back-of-napkin calculation, this is only about 0.33% of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. This seems pretty insignificant, to me.

I am prone to mistakes, though, so here's my calculation in case someone wants to check to see if I made some stupid mistake:

10 * 10 ^ 9 = mass of CO2 emitted by humans

44.01 / 28.956 = molar mass of CO2 relative to air (about 1.5)

(5.15 * 10 ^ 18) / 1000 = mass of atmosphere in metric tons

0.00039 = part of atmosphere (by volume) that is CO2

10 * 10 ^ 9 / ((44.01 / 28.956) * (0.00039 * ((5.15 * 10 ^ 18) / 1000)))= 0.0033 or 0.33%

That's my two cents in this discussion.

EDIT: Never mind. The OP also made a mistake. The OP was posting the mass of carbon being released, not carbon dioxide.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Vaporo

[Bill Phil]

It bugs me when people the amount of CO2 reprocessing that trees do. The fact is, something like 75% of the earth's CO2 reprocessing comes from algae in the oceans.

So, is anyone up for underwater algae forests?

[lajoswinkler]

So, is anyone up for underwater algae forests?

Algae as in phytoplankton. These guys. Tons of them.

Underwater plants such as these

live only up to several hundred metres, often not below 200 m. There's no light on the ocean floor - it's barren and almost lunar like, except there are no craters. These plants have almost negligible role in oxygen production, unlike phytoplankton.

[GoSlash27]

So, is anyone up for underwater algae forests?

Depends. What's the environmental impact of artificially increasing the algae population? What are the economic (and thus social) costs involved?

Every action has effects. We rarely expect the bad ones...

Best,

-Slashy

[magnemoe]

The only way we might have some kind of impact is to stop using fossil fuels completely. Re-planting trees to compensate for fossil fuel use is a lie!

Lets say you use fossil fuels and emit 1000 tons of CO₂. Now you plant a new forest in order to absorb those 1000 tons worth of CO₂. Nice and clean you might think, the total sum is zero. WRONG! No matter what you do with those trees eventually they will either rot or burn, releasing all the captured CO₂ back in to the atmosphere.

The trees will die in 50-100 yeas, now if you use the logs you have 100 extra years.

Don't worry about 2200, worry about 2o2o.

Bonus trees looks nice

[micha]

It will not help at all. Most air pollution is produced by China and India, their industry.

Hmm, last I checked, quite a large proportion of the western goods are produced in the east. We've merely moved production somewhere cheaper - cheap labour, and cheap (and dirty) manufacturing. Basically, it's OUR pollution which we've off-shored. And if the west was more willing to share advanced designs (power generation; manufacturing plants) with those countries who actually do our manufacturing for us, maybe they'd build less polluting infrastructure?

As for stopping man-made climate change (as opposed to the standard natural variation which we also have to deal with) - yeah, too late for that. But we CAN prevent it from getting worse by cutting down on emissions. Only because we're now committed to X meters of sea-level rise and Y degrees of average temperature increase doesn't mean we should just throw our hands in the air and keep polluting - we can still stop things going from bad to worse.

[Bill Phil]

Hmm, last I checked, quite a large proportion of the western goods are produced in the east. We've merely moved production somewhere cheaper - cheap labour, and cheap (and dirty) manufacturing. Basically, it's OUR pollution which we've off-shored. And if the west was more willing to share advanced designs (power generation; manufacturing plants) with those countries who actually do our manufacturing for us, maybe they'd build less polluting infrastructure?

As for stopping man-made climate change (as opposed to the standard natural variation which we also have to deal with) - yeah, too late for that. But we CAN prevent it from getting worse by cutting down on emissions. Only because we're now committed to X meters of sea-level rise and Y degrees of average temperature increase doesn't mean we should just throw our hands in the air and keep polluting - we can still stop things going from bad to worse.

Actually, China knows that it has cheap labor. Even with advanced designs they would want to keep it inexpensive, for business reasons.

It's already gone to worse... We just need to stop it from getting worser...

Aren't the temperate regions getting colder (on average in winter) and the polar regions getting warmer? Average, of course.

[tater]

To do a proper cost-benefit analysis on mitigation vs adaptation you would need models sufficiently accurate to be useful. Plainly stated, the current models are not near that level. We cannot even say (even assuming the worst) if mitigation is cheaper than adaptation, or even the time scales any mitigation might take. In addition to adaptation, there is even the possibility of climate engineering. Again, since the models are so lousy, there is no way to test.

OP's major problem is aping the hyperbole so often seen in the now politicized arena of climate. I'm open to whatever the data shows, then open to evaluating solutions based upon cost vs efficacy. All this is predicated on accurate, predictive models, something that does not yet exist.

We would be better off to mitigate pollution for the myriad other reasons it's a good idea. As I've said for a long time, start with splitting atoms, not burning them.

[GoSlash27]

As for stopping man-made climate change (as opposed to the standard natural variation which we also have to deal with) - yeah, too late for that. But we CAN prevent it from getting worse by cutting down on emissions. Only because we're now committed to X meters of sea-level rise and Y degrees of average temperature increase doesn't mean we should just throw our hands in the air and keep polluting - we can still stop things going from bad to worse.

Actually, all the data says we can't. We can theoretically make a tiny decrease in the rate at which things will get worse, but we cannot "stop it".

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything at all, but it also doesn't mean that we should rampaging around causing wanton destruction in a vain attempt to do the impossible.

A rational approach will include a proper cost/ benefit analysis, not abject panic and hyperbole.

Best,

-Slashy

[Newt]

Part of the issue here is the sheer scale and complexity of the challenge at hand. Sure, deforestation is big, and it would be good to stop it. But then you get into a heap of economic and political difficulties. Oceanic pollution (like the huge volume of plastic waste floating around the Pacific) also warrants addressing. This is bad, but it is a huge thing to try to repair. Cars use some oil, and they contribute to CO2 pollution, but a bigger problem is the factories and power plants that use coal, and spew more pollution into the air. Of course, many of those have a good deal of wealth and consequently political power, which makes their dismantling difficult, especially in regions where really, it would be difficult to get support for a new, clean power plant. Meanwhile, farms in ''developed' states often use destructive monoculture and pesticide, which is hardly good for many things down the road (or river, as the case may be). At the same time, people can blame the Chinese, or the Indians, or throw their hands in the air and say its all pointless anyway, and there is nothing we can do about it.

It is difficult to rally behind some strategy, as a consequence. You cannot really hit all of these targets (and there are more than have I listed), in any practical way, all at once while making an impact of note. The interconnectedness of some issues are interesting. electric cars sound great, and they really could be if everyone who used a car now switched to one. But if your electric car is powered by a coal power plant, we have a problem. Other efforts at geoengineering may sound promising, and may be promising, but most practical proposals that I have seen do not really demonstrate feasibility of doing it at the required scale, and do not adequately demonstrate that they will not cause other problems; if you give me a pistol, I can cure anybody's cancer.

In defense of the idea of battling climate change, I think we can well realize that some of the changes that we are forecasting are not that great for humanity. Climate changes all the time, sure. Why can we not take the reins, just because it can run by itself? The problem is the dire forecasts (many of which are justified) which cause huge confusion and convince people that nothing can be done. In a lot of places, that is the case. We probably need to be patient, the changes we are causing are fast, but are not like Venus smashing into the Earth from a retrograde orbit (in two weeks). We need to accept that things are going to happen, and then try to prevent them from getting worse, maybe even make them a bit better. But stopping them, was probably for the seventies.

[RainDreamer]

Maybe we should start to look ahead and figure out ways to minimizing the effects of the consequences now, since there are a lot of points of no return we already passed. Gotta prepare for the fall out soon.

Water world, anyone?

[Nibb31]

Living like it was 1515 wouldn't do any good either. In the 16th Century, there were only about 500 million humans on Earth. We are now approaching 8 billion. We couldn't feed that amount of people with 16th Century technology and resources.

Personally, I think it's probably too late to fight climate change. The feedback loops are already out of control, with warming releasing more methane than expected, glaciers melting faster than expected. Even the most pessimistic expectations have been surpassed. I don't think there is much that we can do at this point to reverse or even slow down the effect other than brace and ride it through.

Does that mean we should keep on burning stuff to make things worse ? No. If the future is going to be as bleak as it seems, then it's not going to get any easier to extract stuff to burn. We should be saving resources instead of spending them at an increasingly high rate. Even though population growth is slowly leveling, the average wealth of the global population is increasing, which increases demand for resources. 8 billion people cannot all live like Americans. If they did, the entire planet's resources would be expended in a few decades.

Some people cling to the hope that technology will come up with something that will save us, but what if it doesn't? This is really a race between a logarithmic technological advancement curve against a series of exponential positive feedback curves. We are already losing that race, and as the economical situation gets worse, the investment in technology and science decreases. When you run out of resources, your economy is in the dump, your and you are at war with desperate folks who are fleeing desertification and want your stuff, that is not the best time for investing in expensive new technology.

Will we be able to invent clean fusion power before we run out of oil and civilisation gets overrun by the barbarian hords who want our water.

What we should be doing is prepare for the changes. Climatic change combined with overpopulation is cause huge demographic pressure. There will be waves of migration, because in the grand scheme of things, borders and nations are only very recent and ultimately meaningless inventions. This will cause huge demographic tension and struggles for resources and influence. I can't really think of a peaceful way for those problems to be solved. The Earth is a closed system, and the World's economy is based on growth. If you stop growth, it collapses, yet it cannot grow forever.

What we need is to invent a new economy that replaces the reliance on perpetual growth with a reliance on sustainable resources. The problem is combining a finite pool of resources with the human drive to improve their standard of living, to innovate, to explore.

If the world's wealth is a pie, there are more and more people who want a bigger and bigger piece of the pie, there are only two solutions:

a - Either everyone has to eat less pie

b - You need to reduce the number of people who want pie

Nobody is going to accept a, either in rich or emerging countries, because what makes us human is the drive to increase our comfort and safety, and that happens through wealth.

In my opinion, the key is b, to peacefully solve the population issue (through education and contraception), by progressively bringing the human population down from 8 billion to say 1 billion (which is where we were in the 19th Century), we can all still strive for a larger piece of pie while reducing our reliance on growth.

If we can't do that, well, nature is going to take option b in a non-peaceful way, and it's not going to be pretty.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Nibb31

[Special Agent Sigvan]

This isn't going to be the end for humanity, the environment can only harm us so much.

If worst comes to worst, eventually we'll update our technology and that will help.

Once hybrids and electric cars become mainstream across the world, that'll help a little.

[Nibb31]

This isn't going to be the end for humanity, the environment can only harm us so much.

If worst comes to worst, eventually we'll update our technology and that will help.

Once hybrids and electric cars become mainstream across the world, that'll help a little.

"A little" won't make a dent in the positive feedback loops.

Improvements in efficiency and productivity due to technology follow the laws of diminishing returns. They are logarithmic curves (the curve flattens as they increase at a slower rate). On the other hand, climate change and resource expenditure are getting worse exponentially (the curve goes up sharper, as they increase at a higher rate). It's a dangerous to bet that technology wins the race.

I don't think it will be the end of Humanity, as in the Human species, but we have put ourselves in a situation of huge imbalance. Nature doesn't like imbalance and the laws of physics always tend towards an equilibrium, so there is bound to be an adjustment at some point. I can't imagine such an adjustment wouldn't inflict a huge blow to the economy, the demographics, our nation-states, and civilization as we know it. And a lot of people will be hurt.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Nibb31

[Special Agent Sigvan]

"A little" won't make a dent in the positive feedback loops.

We are far past the point of no-return, nothing the average human can do, it's a matter of hoping that it all works out for us in the end.

And you know what? If it doesn't effect us now or in the immediate future, no one will care. Once it is you'll be surprised what people will do under immense pressure.

Improvements in efficiency and productivity due to technology follow the laws of diminishing returns. They are logarithmic curves (the curve flattens as they increase at a slower rate). On the other hand, climate change and resource expenditure are getting worse exponentially (the curve goes up sharper, as they increase at a higher rate). It's a dangerous to bet that technology wins the race.

There's one thing you missed in that:

Technology is handled by people, people who want to survive.

My friend once said that after 2015 (After a meeting said Ebola was going to be past the point of handling, I heard it somewhere) Ebola would be everywhere, internet and electricity would be gone, it would be anarchy in the street and a lot of people would resort to cannibalism or other uncivilized behaviors in the face of sudden anarchy.

Look how far we've come.

No more cannibals in the street than normal.

No more anarchy in the street than expected.

You'd be surprised what people can do in an urgent situation. Pressure is a good motivator. If we really need it, we'd get it, people would force the change necessary and save us.

[RainDreamer]

In my opinion, the key is b, to peacefully solve the population issue (through education and contraception), by progressively bringing the human population down from 8 billion to say 1 billion (which is where we were in the 19th Century), we can all still strive for a larger piece of pie while reducing our reliance on growth.

If we can't do that, well, nature is going to take option b in a non-peaceful way, and it's not going to be pretty.

That reminds me of a certain sci-fi story i read where all human has been genetically modified to be unable to breed biologically. Making love becomes a casual pastime and gender/orientation is no longer a big problem as before due to this. They reproduce technologically instead, and using AIs to control those methods.

For some reasons that sounds like a possible future now.

You'd be surprised what people can do in an urgent situation. Pressure is a good motivator. If we really need it, we'd get it, people would force the change necessary and save us.

Pressure is a good motivator, but it is not a good catalyst for rational thinking. Sometimes that do more harm than good.

Edited March 9, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Special Agent Sigvan]

Rational thinking holds people back, if we're screwed already might as well go amazingly insane with our attempts at solving the problem.

Who knows? It should work out eventually, we have intelligence on our side. Autonomous life protocols are at the mercy of humanity as this problem proves, we have something if nothing else on our side.

God I'm inspirational.