Worth watching for the climate change piece alone. Valuable. I still have a deep respect for Sagan.

‘OK Doomer’ and the Climate Advocates Who Say It’s Not Too Late

A growing chorus of young people is focusing on climate solutions. “‘It’s too late’ means ‘I don’t have to do anything, and the responsibility is off me.’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/climate/climate-change-ok-doomer.html?action=click&module=card&pageType=theWeekenderLink

I recall us having discussions about whether it would make a relevant difference voting for Trump or Biden. Just wondering, because I'm not taking US laws and politics in this area, has Biden done anything relevant yet?

In other news, the UN says:

‘Now or never’ to avoid climate catastrophe: UN

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/4/now-or-never-to-avoid-climate-catastrophe-un

I mean, honestly, I think it's likely game over. Which does NOT mean that we stop doing something to help alleviate the situation, but the timescale is waaaay too tight compared to the lack of commitment shown by many countries. It's tragic.

Biden's tapped the strategic reserve to release a million barrels a day to try and reduce gas prices. We became fracking kings under Obama. The Democrats only pay lip service to environmentalism.

Just wondering, because I'm not taking US laws and politics in this area, has Biden done anything relevant yet? — Benkei

Think of it this way perhaps. Before Trump, the brakes on fossil fuel had already been tampered with. By the time Biden got in the driving seat, even the steering wheel had been removed.

Think of it this way perhaps. Before Trump, the brakes on fossil fuel had already been tampered with. By the time Biden got in the driving seat, even the steering wheel had been removed. — apokrisis

I've reconciled myself to the fact humans won't prevent the coming climate change. Maybe there'll be a tech miracle that pulls our chestnuts out of the fire, or maybe it won't be as bad as we think it will be.

Thoughts are already turning to the last resort of geoengineering. Putin may save us all with a little timely dose of nuclear winter. :up:

:up:

Maybe there'll be a tech miracle that pulls our chestnuts out of the fire, or maybe it won't be as bad as we think it will be. — RogueAI

Or maybe it will be worse.

I recall us having discussions about whether it would make a relevant difference voting for Trump or Biden. Just wondering, because I'm not taking US laws and politics in this area, has Biden done anything relevant yet? — Benkei

Biden has been mostly rhetoric on climate change. But yes, there have been some relevant moves. The appointment of judges is also helpful to climate change.

I still am baffled by the question of whether or not voting against Trump was the right move. I didn't for a moment think that Biden was a good candidate, however, or would do wonders for the climate. He's been about the same as Obama.

The article I posted above deals with this kind of despair. If we all lose heart, we guarantee the worst.

But @Xtrix this is not about giving in to despair, per se. It's about looking at the evidence right in front of our face. If the evidence says, we have even less time that previously estimated, and the previous timeline was bad enough, are we just going to lie to ourselves? It's like we have gangrene in our legs, but we won't chop them off because there's still a chance it won't spread or something.

But what I want to stress is that even if we cannot avoid the worse scenario, this doesn't mean we don't try to mitigate the oncoming damages, there has to be stuff we can do to reduce or resist what's coming.

We also have to think, if we do pass the projected deadlines, which seems likely (but not certain - yet), what then? If we give up, despair will creep in. But if we say we've got to keep helping the situation, we'll be called liars for being alarmists.

So it's not easy in any situation.

The article I posted above deals with this kind of despair. If we all lose heart, we guarantee the worst. — Xtrix

But what I want to stress is that even if we cannot avoid the worse scenario, this doesn't mean we don't try to mitigate the oncoming damages, there has to be stuff we can do to reduce or resist what's coming. — Manuel

Despair comes from personal helplessness.

So what we need to be individually is realistic about the possibilities of the whole world coming to its senses and acting cohesively vs the likelihood instead of everything fragmenting and becoming a wretched fight to the last.

The call could go either way, so that is the uncertainty. But we can personally keep our heads up and watching, preparing for the range of most probable outcomes.

In some folk's situations, that might involve joining their countries police/military/security on the assumption that the muscle will look after itself. Or it might involve moving to small and remote communities with the self-sustaining basics and high social capital.

Everyone is capable of making these kinds of calculations of where it is better to be if the worst actually does happen, and where it would also be quite OK to be if it doesn't.

The big mistake is to expect the world at the level of its state political and economic actors not to be doing precisely the same. Everyone will be looking at the charts, weighing up the probabilities, deciding how to position themselves in a complicated game where either we all miraculously cooperate - because that turns out to be easy to do, as with the ozone layer - or we all collapse into a fight over what remains.

Look at the pandemic. Look at the Ukraine. The balance of competition or self-interest vs cooperation or mutual win-win calculations is always going to be in play in how the planet handles its crises.

The Pentagon will be gaming out the scenarios - like whether geoengineering could be a risk worth taking to kick the can down the road a few more decades when fusion power might be a thing.

Or whether a fortress America approach in a rapidly self-depopulating world is the bet to back. Bunker down and let the four horsemen of the Apocalypse take care of the global carbon production problem.

Of course one mustn't over-estimate the capacity of state leaders to see their realities in these kinds of big picture ways. The guys at the top often are quite insulated and emotionally beholden to interest groups - their party, their sponsors, their own rhetoric.

But down among the technocrats, they will be gaming out the scenarios and even making the preparatory moves. That's their job.

Sure. Ukraine might be a little different, but I do think that the global response to the pandemic shows how badly we cooperate with each other. Had we a more rational society, we could have finished with this pandemic in a year or so, not having it still raging on.

But you are correct about having to constantly analyze various complex circumstances changing in real time. As mere individuals, the chances of despair are much, much higher than if decisions are done in a large scale manner, which signals to a bigger "amount" of power that one can use to pressure for some kind of change.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/is-the-worlds-most-important-climate-legislation-about-to-die-in-us-congress

23 april, make it or break it I guess.

Jesus, I'm fighting my municipality already for 16 weeks to get approval to place solar panels. My house, build in 2012 along with the entire street, is in the zone of historic houses. So they are allowed to limit building permits if required to protect the cultural historic value. But in an exception in the rule, certain streets in the historic centre are exempted due to the year they were build - the 70s. So they employ build year as a proxy for cultural historic value and I thought that would be the end of it. Nevertheless, they refuse a permit. So bloody frustrating.

It will not pass. If Manchin decides to pass something, which has been reported he's interested in doing so piece-meal, it will be devoid of anything meaningful. That's assuming anything passes whatsoever.

Of course, it isn't just Manchin. He's taking the fall on this, and happy to do so, but most of the Democratic party isn't interested in passing anything meaningful for the working/middle class, for the environment, or for really anything that threatens their plutocratic masters' position and power. They made their choice long ago; it was particularly evident in how the DNC effectively, unlike the RNC, beat back the more popular candidate, Bernie Sanders. The rest has mostly been empty lip service and placation to corral his supporters -- and the last year has taken away any doubt whatsoever of this (their vote was against Trump anyway, not for Biden -- which is a crucial distinction).

So the legislation is indeed dead, and the fossil fuel kingpin is largely (but not entirely) to blame. It was already largely watered down, which is what initially made me think that it had a chance of passing (given that the biggest provision was already removed and the price tag came way down). Alas, my own foolishness.

We're wasting with time we don't have, either way. Democrats only nibble around the edges.

I'm thinking now that there are two options before us: (1) the people can give what's called the "extreme" sides of the political spectrum full control over the government -- abolish the filibuster or give supermajorities, etc -- so that we see what truly comes out of either vision (including, unfortunately, the Republican party). This is probably spells doom, and wastes 2-6 years. But at least the citizens will get a real sense of what it looks like, as they do in state governments dominated by one party or the other.

Or (2) is that we wait for a much-needed cultural and economic upheaval. 9/11 obviously didn't cut it. 2008 financial crisis and recession came close, but mostly that just got us Trump. The coronavirus obviously didn't bring anyone together, although it has shifted people around in their jobs, perhaps increased remote work, and apparently has energized, to a degree, the labor movement (Starbucks, Amazon, all the strikes taking place). But none of it is enough. We need a real crash and a real depression. Things need to get far worse, evidently -- because the 80% of the American populace is still convinced that there are "two sides."

What I'm waiting for is the massive crash of the stock market -- which I have little doubt will happen. Watch what the Fed does.

Unfortunately, if this does happen it will most likely bring the Republicans in power -- and possibly Trump again. But perhaps that's what's necessary to awaken the large movement (bordering on revolution if not outright revolution) that's needed, at this point.

Beyond that, I see no way we avoided future catastrophe.

(BTW, I don't want to minimize the huge success of the people organizing in unions and going on strikes, etc. -- the concession of Shultz to freeze $20 billion in stock buybacks is a MAJOR victory for labor, and shouldn't be dismissed.)

People have had 50 years to awaken. It's not going to happen, mate. As I expected when I told you "same difference".

What you need to do, being aware, is starting on that back up plan. Find land at least 30 meters above sea level, make it energy neutral with enough land to grow enough food and enough water nearby or enough rainfall to capture it. Study some agriculture and teach your kids, if you have them. If you don't have them, don't get them unless you know your backup plan is going to work. Preferably do it with a group of people so you can specialise in various skills.

People have had 50 years to awaken. It's not going to happen, mate. — Benkei

Maybe not. But the way I see it, if that's true -- it's hopeless anyway. But since that's not set in stone, I will keep trying.

By the way, I see it being closer to 40 years, from around the beginning of the Reagan administration. That's still a long time. But many in the 1930s probably felt the same way -- that no one will organize. We face our own set of obstacles now, but it wasn't that long ago that things were better. I think we began to see the end of the neoliberal era in 2008. There are signs of it everywhere. We see it in the shift to "stakeholder capitalism" to the election of several progressives to the widespread labor strikes.

I think it's all becoming a "supersaturated solution." I think the 'awakening' is right in front of our noses. I think Bernie tapped into it.

Hmmm.

It's not going to happen, mate. — Benkei

Fires and floods seem to be focusing folk's attention. One might be hopeful.

To really halt excess CO2 production instead of just slowing it down would require some sort of global covenant: a new global religion, basically.

It could happen, but until then I think you're right that you can help by having faith in mankind. With that faith you influence the world around you in all sorts of small ways. You send out a certain message along the webs of communication extending around the globe.

That's the effect of faith: to "be the change you wish to see in the world".

To really halt excess CO2 production instead of just slowing it down would require some sort of global covenant: a new global religion, basically. — frank

There's truth to this. But I would make two points: (1), I view capitalism as the real religion, and a particular variant of it seems to be dominating the minds of the plutocracy -- whether or not this can change, I don't know. But I wouldn't say it's global. (2) This religious conversion is only necessary if people continue not to organize/act collectively.

On a positive note: climate change has been reported far more than in the past, the country seems to be moving a little in prioritizing it (according to polls), and there's a significant movement compared to even 10 years ago. Plus, younger people seem much more likely to care about this crisis, for good reason. Big business, including fossil fuel companies, have moved from outright denial to admitting we have to do something -- i.e., the delay-as-long-as-possible phase. But that's still movement. Renewable energy and clean technology has advantaged and become much cheaper, etc.

This would all make me very hopeful...if it were 1988. But since we've essentially wasted 34 years, most of the warming is locked in. We have only some idea of how destructive 1.5 to 2.5 degrees warming will be -- but given the level of destruction we've already seen (and are seeing) at just 1.2 C, it's likely to be hellish.

Fires and floods seem to be focusing folk's attention. One might be hopeful. — Banno

Yes...and if we had another 20/30 years of runway, this would be good. But much like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry will fight to the bitter end to burn their products -- and that means the politicians they control and the misinformation they put out (now greenwashing) will continue to lose us time. By the time it becomes a non-partisan issue, there likely won't be time left.

We can put our hopes into carbon-removing technology, but that doesn't seem very promising.

(1), I view capitalism as the real religion, and a particular variant of it seems to be dominating the minds of the plutocracy -- whether or not this can change, I don't know. — Xtrix

It's changing in Russia right now. They're transitioning to a command economy. They will continue to export coal and gas because they're dependent on the proceeds.

most of the warming is locked in — Xtrix

Not yet. There's still a huge amount of coal left. It would take America about 200 years to burn all its own coal. That's what we need the Covenant for.

The intransigence of the Liberal government dow nunder is potentially, insipently, leading them to be bypassed. States and electricity companies have been forced to make their own way by a lack of leadership, a lack of direction. Solar panels on roofs are more common than anywhere else on earth, and electricity suppliers have realised that there is no future in coal, closing down generators against the wishes of the government. Those same companies are facing hostile takeover bids from investors with greener ideas.

In this way conservative incompetence has undermined itself. Let us all rejoice in the demise of neoliberalism! Destroyed by the free market!

Maybe there'll be a tech miracle that pulls our chestnuts out of the fire, or maybe it won't be as bad as we think it will be. — RogueAI

The tech miracle would be commercial fusion. With cheap, abundant energy you can do a lot. Such as large-scale carbon capture and desalinization.

As for how bad it will be, the latest IPCC report has us likely averting the worst case emission scenarios, being on pace for somewhere between 2.7 to 4 degrees warming. That's down from previous estimates, so we can likely expect the range to keep falling somewhat as renewables and battery tech continue to improve. The climate scientists I've seen debate online don't think that sort of range is likely to be an existential threat. It will be a serious challenge for global civilization and far from ideal, but not one that will bring it down, unless there are tipping points in those temperature ranges that put us on a hot earth trajectory. Or we have WW3. Which we could still have before then for other reasons. No doubt climate change will strain certain relations.

The tech miracle would be commercial fusion. With cheap, abundant energy you can do a lot. Such as large-scale carbon capture and desalinization. — Marchesk

:up:

the latest IPCC report — Marchesk

They only look out about a century, right?

The tech miracle would be commercial fusion. With cheap, abundant energy you can do a lot. Such as large-scale carbon capture and desalinization. — Marchesk

Too late for that. By the time this is effectively available, we will have breezed past the moment we could've avoided 1.5 degrees.

So the solution to too much energy in the global climate is a source of abundant cheap energy? Place getting too hot? let's make some tiny little suns to power our air-conditioning. That'll work.