Doesn't seem like there is any foreseeable future where climate change can be addressed. It's not just the leadership of the u.s, but the citizens themselves reject climate change as a real issue. Hopefully I'm just being pessemsitic.
replies(3):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Annual_C...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Annual_C...
"Climate change denialism is a natural state of mind"
We as apelike animals just did not optimize for thinking globally. We optimized for the local here and now and the immediate future.
"Fire burns, fire warm, fire good. More firewood we need!".
And I think why we're having such a hard time with "climate denialism" is because we're not really presenting arguments against the underlying argument.
I do kinda feel like a responsible leader, that should be elected anyway for reasons other than intended climate policy, should also have the guts to put a topic on the table that means scary change for a massive decrease in worldsuck on a timescale we're comfortable estimating the broad effects for
First, we're talking about trend lines on the order of less than +1C per human lifetime. Recently, there was some buzz here in Toronto about some day or other having been the hottest that-calendar-day in a very long time, and near the record since measurements started 200 years ago. But if you look at that scatter plot, what you see is that yes, the trend line goes up by perhaps 2C over that period, but the year-to-year variation is on the order of 20C. And the difference between the average daily highs in the hottest and coldest months here is about 27C, to which you can add about another 8C for intra-day variation from high to low. Month by month, the recorded extremes of heat range 12-20C above the averages, and record lows plunge 13-27C below averages for daily minimums. All in all, a temperature range of over 73C has been observed here.
Regardless of the consequences scientists expect as a result, a couple of degrees of warming since the Industrial Revolution (with some more effectively priced in for the future) is mere noise against that backdrop. Humans are simply not sensitive to that rate of change; nor can they be expected to realize the effects intuitively given that they're adapted to dealing with such great natural variation in temperature. So they have to know the science to get there. The result is not intuitive. If it were, there would have been no need to do the science in the first place.
Almost no humans are equipped to replicate the science themselves - there are huge barriers in every category: awareness, willingness, time, resources and knowledge (of scientific methods, of research methods, perhaps even of how to use more sophisticated equipment than just thermometers). So they have to trust the authorities that present the science to them.
Trust in authority is not natural for humans - it has to be socialized into them. This is especially the case for humans born and raised in a democracy, and especially when the authority in question is implying a need for lifestyle changes that seem like they would cause lower overall quality of life. If that trust were natural, North American schools could actually focus on education.
Climate change is a coordination problem. In a coordination problem, treating non-cooperators as opponents - especially by implying that they've been brainwashed by some other party, thus denying them agency - is an incredibly shortsighted and counterproductive move. Especially when it comes with such openly tribalistic framing (i.e. citing as evidence some partisan bias in lobbying by specific businesses).
In short: people don't believe you because you don't show them things they can see for themselves, and you frame yourself as someone who wants them to sacrifice themselves for a greater good that you don't make legible to them. Warning about the threat of impending doom is not presenting a legible "greater good". If that worked, everyone who lives in Christian-majority countries would be an evangelical.
But Americans do drive everywhere, and that's 48% of all transport emissions (just cars, not even counting trucks, with that it's more like 73% for all road transport). So yeah. Nobody gives a fuck.
* Value moral superiority and "being right" over results.
* Broadly think that people who categorically disagree with them are stupid and just need to be educated about the truth.
* Believe that the mere existence of climate change implies that we have to do everything they say to combat it.
* As a group are largely incapable of knowing when they're being put on and baited.
So say hypothetically you "deny climate change." But of course you don't outright deny it, you say that there's no evidence. The discussion shifts away from what the proper response to climate change is to whether it even exists. In public discussions you can dismiss any argument with "well it doesn't even exist." They will then proceed to spinlock boiling the oceans with the energy expenditure trying to prove it exists— "surely this next piece of evidence will be undeniable and I'll have them cornered!"
But that couldn't possibly work, right?
General power production is currently 25% of total, we can fix that with hydro, wind, solar, nuclear. Plans are clear, they need to be put into action.
Agriculture is another 25% which will be a candidate for reduction once there's something more energy dense than diesel available to run every tractor and combine harvester in the world (currently looking like never). EV tractors are in the golf cart stage of usefulness. Not something we can realistically reduce by much if you want to continue eating food.
Home emissions are only 6-8%, but we can easily drive that to zero with induction cookers and ban of fuel oil heating, subsidizing heat pumps and district heating.
Of the 14% that is transport, cars can go EV and vans/trucks for city last mile delivery. Semi trucks should be replaced as much as possible by electric trains (good luck building that much rail though). On the other hand planes can't even ditch leaded fuel for piston engines yet, they're so far behind. Electric planes are a 1 hour flight time joke, hydrogen use is nonexistent. Sea shipping can go battery electric as well although it would be incredibly expensive.
How much we can cut down in the 20% that's emitted by industry is a good question that I have little insight into. I presume some chemical processes inherently release CO2, but there is a lot that can likely be done.
It's very appropriate to pull out "X is only Y% of emissions" when there are vastly larger targets we should be concerning ourselves with. Admitting where the problem actually lies doesn't absolve individuals of all responsibly or prevent individuals from making smarter choices. Very few people need a truck or SUV and we'd all be better off with fewer of them on the road, but it's that's the last thing we should be worried about when it comes to meaningfully addressing climate change.
But when even the activists fly for vacation - then who will really reduce voluntarily? Apparently not many. I know people who take it seriously, and personally I have not taken a flight in years.
Still, the relevant point is individuals are quick to blame others, yet unwilling to change their own behavior.
Oh, so we just have to take down those evil corporations and then everything will be solved?
That is how it sounds like. Easy solution. Except - who will then produce and deliver the cheap food and products for the poor unresponsible individuals to consume?
- Did these particular individuals get a chance to defend against this allegation or is it just assumed to be the whole truth? It has the ring of a convenient belief¹ that you can bring up whenever someone mentions that e.g. much less frequent flying and rarely eating beef/lamb are some large-impact things people could do. Was it actually them? Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train? Did they do, or buy, something that compensates the emissions (something one can reasonably believe to be effective, not the airline's 2€-on-checkout option)?
And even if, I'm also not going to stop flying entirely when literally everybody else here does it. I'm not the pope, even if I advocate for making things better (not trying to go for perfect, the enemy of good). Why should I sacrifice my life? I just came back from a train trip across the continent that I could also have flown or driven in individual transport (for free even, as the car I co-use has a flat fee fuel subscription). I try to do the right thing where reasonably possible, as it was in this case, but I'm not sure we should expect everyone who speaks of climate change to only ever do the right thing, especially when things like direct air capture can plausibly undo your emissions. It's cheaper not to fly than to fly and pay Climeworks to undo it, but that is an option, as is reducing the amount of flying. Both are good, both would allow you to further the anecdotal evidence that climate activists fly
¹ By which I mean a belief to justify something one wants for other reasons. The example that comes to mind is the "protip" that leaving the heater on a constant temperature is more efficient than stopping to burn fuel when you're not even home, which means you come home to a warm and cozy place so yeah sure one loves to hear/believe it and nobody sanity checks the values of how much more efficient your heater actually is when burning at a low rate as compared to the fuel saved while you're not home for 8 working hours + commute time
They were in Bali at a tourist location. Not in the Sahel doing developement work.
Also where did I say all activists are to blame? I said I know people who don't fly at all and me who only considers flying in very rare circumstances. But true, I am not an activist.
"Do they fly across the world regularly or are we expecting these people to live like monks consistently their whole lives, only going on holiday by bicycle and (if that exists in their country) train?"
I don't think much of activists, who block other peoples daily commute with a standard car - but fly themself around the world for vacation. It does not matter how often they do it. Judging from activists, I suppose their reasoning is something like, they did so much activism blocking normal roads, that they deserve their vacation.
Well, I don't believe they help the cause, rather the opposite.
(And they were from germany btw. In europe you can easily go to lots of places by bus or train)
I don't blame you, if you are flying. But you don't block other people means of (more efficient) transport I suppose, while thinking you are righteous? That is my problem. This kind of activism. All it does is making people angry at activists and the cause.
Also, there is no downside believing the earth is round.
But believing burning things causes global warming is a) way more abstract b) inconvenient, as it makes you question your luxory. For some it is apparently easier not believing it and maintain a (pseudo) clear consciousness.
No, protesting works, when it is against something you want to stop. But if I want to convince others to stop something, obviously I cannot continue to do the same or a worse thing. I don't know a single protest that worked this way.
But protesting against chopping down a forest to do more coal mining, did worked recently in germany. That was a good and effective protest (mostly). But blocking roads? It just hurts normal people largely with no alternative of transport. I doubt a single person was convinced to help there. Rather the opposite.
The impact of one billionare jetting around the world for fun alone, is pretty small as well.
But if all the billionares are doing it, it already adds up to a impressive number.
And if you choose to jet around the world for vacation - then this alone is pretty neglectible, too. But all the other people also doing it isn't.
And yes, there are more people in a plane. Just like in a train or bus. Yet they are way more efficient. Only very few people driver alone over 1000 km for vacation.
We should look to lowering our plastic consumption, electrifying American homes, and building transportation infrastructure so walking, biking, and public transit become more viable.
Or all of it and reduce flying as well?
At least until we made serious progress in the energy sector.
