The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair.. — Benkei

Sure, but that's part of the problem, no? If we wait to do something about climate change until we a have policies that impact everybody equally, we might have to wait until it's to late. The rich are rather good at avoiding taxes and social responsibilities. And then across countries you also have the tragedy of the commons/prisoners dilemma, in that in a world of competing countries you don't want to be the first to make sacrifices that makes you weaker competitively.

People have no problems with making sacrifices as long as everybody does. — Benkei

I don't see evidence for this specifically in the study, but I only skimmed it so maybe I missed it.

people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes. — Benkei

There's a huge difference on what kind of subsidy one wants for a negative outcome than with the tax one would pay for there be no negative outcome.

Far better is to give incentives for the industry and for the needed infrastructure to be created for electric cars (starting with having that electricity demand met without new or existing coal plants).

Furthermore, just notice that actually older cars don't run on present day fuel sold in gas stations. So the timeline basically for cars to transform happens in many decades.

Far too many times policies are done that sound good, people think our needed, but simply don't have any trace of reality in them. As if they really would want to face an economic recession, blackouts and lower standard of living than before. Just as one historical example: after the Three Mile Island incident, Sweden decided after a referendum in 1980 to go away from nuclear energy. The Parliament decided that nuclear energy production would be phased out by 2010, hence in thirty years. In 2010, Sweden was producing far more nuclear energy, both in power and percentage wise, than in 1980.

Nearly one third of electricity in Sweden is produced by nuclear energy in Sweden today, 42 years after that decision.

So one can basically fuck off with 90% of the bullshit energy policy initiatives which sound good to people, won't happen and will be forgotten when the next administration comes in. And that's why basically many countries don't have a real energy policy. It's all just nice words far from the actual reality.

(Sweden before Greta. Nuclear was bad even then.)

Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban. — Benkei

I don't have time to read things others reference. If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. The fact that the researchers might be proposing banning combustion engines (all combustion engines or just some, and over what time frame?) does not equate to acceptance of the idea by the general populace, and nor does it equate to the proposal being actually viable.

Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it. The point I made was in the initial post and based on the linked science. Since you haven't read it, you'll accept it as gospel truth then. Great!

Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it. — Benkei

I never pretended to have read the linked research; if you thought that it was entirely your own imagining. But wait, you didn't think I had read it anyway:

Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. — Benkei

Don't pretend that I have blamed you for my not having read it, either. I don't blame you for anything other than expecting me to read it, rather than taking the trouble yourself to quote the relevant part(s).

:roll:

Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research. Of course anyone normal would assume you had read it. So I have you the benefit of the doubt and asked, because the answer was peculiar if you had. I didn't assume a thing at that point.

If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. — Janus

This is blame. I'm to follow your unpublished rules of engagement and I'm not allowed to expect you to read something that denies your claims. Silly me. Here I thought you'd be happily surprised people are willing to make sacrifices and you'd actually be interested. Guess that resolves that mystery: your opinion is more dear to you than actual facts. Nice.

Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research. — Benkei

It was not a "blanket denial of the research" but an expression of doubt that the research could be relevant to the point I made that most people don't wish to have their accustomed lifestyles disrupted, and will vote against any proposal to do so. Can you imagine what people would say to a government that told them they must dispose of their SUV and buy a tiny car instead, or stop traveling by air, or actually stop traveling unless on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, because it is a privilege the poor in third world countries don't enjoy?

I can! That's an intuition of mine to be sure, but I think it's accurate, and I know without reading it that no research could prove that wrong, even if they surveyed everyone, because what people say they will agree to and what they actually will agree to, when it comes to the crunch, can be two very different things, as I already suggested. I actually don't believe the majority of people would even say they would agree to such measures, let alone actually agree to them.

The temperature in this thread is shooting up rapidly! Must be global warming! :snicker:

Most people do the best they can for themselves within the rules they live under from time to time. — God

This means, for example, that they will struggle to build their wooden huts on stilts above the flood water in Pakistan, until the flood that washes it all away, and then they will drown. If the government tells them to stay at home for 3 months, or wear a mask, or wear a burkha they will do so, and try to live with that. So there is no problem in banning private transport powered by fossil fuels, and no problem introducing rationing, or enforcing house sharing, or any other necessary measure.

If it were not so, there could be no wars.

So it looks like sea level will rise by 10 inches, inevitably.

https://apnews.com/article/science-oceans-glaciers-greenland-climate-and-environment-9cd7662658ebbeaba05682352de8aa87

This summer has made it even more obvious that we’re heading for disaster— and that much of it is already locked in from the last 30 years of inaction.

At about 1.5°C some tipping points may be reached, including for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, accelerated thawing of boreal permafrost, and die-off of tropical coral reefs. But the authors “cannot rule out” that ice-sheet tipping points have already been passed and that some other tipping elements have minimum thresholds in range of 1.1°C to 1.5°C of warming. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/climate/global-warming-climate-tipping-point.html?smid=url-share

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/14/patagonias-billionaire-owner-gives-away-company-to-fight-climate-crisis-yvon-chouinard

Greta Thunberg says it would be "a mistake" for Germany to switch off its nuclear power plants if that means the country must burn more climate-wrecking coal.

The German government is still debating the future of its nuclear plants, long set to be shut down this year, given the spectre of a looming energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine.

The climate activist told German public broadcaster ARD that it was “a very bad idea to focus on coal when this [nuclear power] is already in place.”

But she acknowledged in the interview, aired today, that there was a strong debate over the issue in Germany.

Asked whether it would be better for the planet if Germany keeps its three remaining nuclear plants going, Thunberg responded: “If we have them already running, I feel that it’s a mistake to close them down in order to focus on coal.”

Pressed by programme host Sandra Maischberger on whether she thought the nuclear plants should be closed down as soon as possible after the current energy crunch passes, Thunberg said “it depends. We don’t know what will happen after this."

The 19-year-old's comments come as Germany's three-party governing coalition argues over the possibility of suspending the country's nuclear phaseout.

What is there to debate?

They should be building nuclear plants en masse non stop.

Winter is coming.

I think she's right. It takes a long time to build these things, so we should be using what is there for as long as possible.

https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022

"The report shows that updated national pledges since COP26 – held in 2021 in Glasgow, UK – make a negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions and that we are far from the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C.

Policies currently in place point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. Implementation of the current pledges will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6°C temperature rise by the end of the century, for conditional and unconditional pledges respectively.

The report finds that only an urgent system-wide transformation can deliver the enormous cuts needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2030: 45 per cent compared with projections based on policies currently in place to get on track to 1.5°C and 30 per cent for 2°C."

Urgent system-wide transformation is unlikely. Enormous investments are needed for that world-wide, and with things getting progressively worse geopolitically, economically and also energy-security wise, investments that only re-pay themselves in the long term seem to be getting more difficult as we get deeper into it. Saying only urgent system-wide transformation would do it, is essentially the same as saying we won't make those targets.

October 30th— tomorrow — will largely determine the fate of life as we know it. Why? Because the Brazilian people vote for a president tomorrow, and the fate of the planet’s lungs — the Amazon — will be decided with it. This isn’t hyperbole.

Fingers crossed that people don’t opt for suicide.

I don't think one particular thing or event will move the needle all that much. Sure it would be bad, but so are a lot of things, not in the least the fact that we have that much greenhouse gasses in the air already, which means a certain amount of rise in temperature is already locked in for the next 30 years or so.

More than certain political parties winning in this or that country, the issue we have and have had for the past 30 years is mostly global and systemic. This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons. Fossil fuels is power (and not that easy to replace contrary to somewhat popular opinion), and countries are locked in geopolitical struggle always... which means those that would stop using carbon fuels first loose out, and so they don't.

The only possible way out of this particular prisoner's dilemma is the main geopolitical powers, the US and China, both unilaterally or maybe in a bilateral agreement, deciding to phase out fossil fuels in a short timeframe and forcing the rest of the world to follow. So maybe it could be about national politics after all, but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much.

Is it already too late?

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Mikie

I think we will reach certain tipping points at this stage simply from inactivity and favouring observing the effects of climate as proof that it exists, rather than to acting against them without evidence. But the evidence in daily life is growing and those that said it was deniable are finding it harder and harder to justify their denial these days.

Having said that we are extremely resourceful and clever when we need to be. And we are able to adapt very well. So now that climate change is really making itself known through observation I think more and more people are getting on board with the idea that it is a true and inevitable problem.

Now that we are becoming ever more united against climate change we can adapt to those tipping points that have already past and make plans to circumvent those that have not already occurred.

This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons — ChatteringMonkey

On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.

It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference.

You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide.

The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves?

On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.

It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference. — Benj96

No. Reason and rhetoric are not the same. People are hardly, if ever, convinced by reason.

You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide. — Benj96

Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want. But I wasn't talking about people, but about nations... people don't matter all that much in this case.

The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves? — Benj96

Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true?

but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much. — ChatteringMonkey

Then you’re really not paying attention.

Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying.

Also suppose you hold a gun to someone's head and try to make them do what you want. And they refuse. Your only choice is what... Have your bluffed called and you drop the weapon or you pull the trigger. Would you really make a murderer out of yourself just because someone resoundingly disagreed with what you wanted?

Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true? — ChatteringMonkey

No not myself some advantage. Surprisingly, not everything someone does is in self interest. Sometimes we see an issue that isn't our problem and doesn't affect us but we go out and try to solve it for others to make their lives better. We do it because we can. And because its what we think is right.

Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation.

Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying. — Benj96

You can, but you shouldn't, sure, I can agree with that. Anyway, we going on a bit of a tangent here. My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really.

The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market.

This is a simple idea really. You need energy for almost everything you produce. If energy-costs go up in one country (like it is the case now in Europe) prices go up and sales go down because we have a globalised market... and so companies fail or relocate to a place where costs are lower. At the end of this process political parties in power in that democratic country will lose because people don't like being unemployed and prices going up... so they get replaced by another political party that promises to get back the countries competitive edge. Doing the right thing doesn't get you elected just because it's the right thing.

Edit: And by 'forcing' I don't necessarily mean military force, although that could be part of it, but in the first place setting trade standards with the rest of the world so that carbon fueled goods cannot be sold.

Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation. — Benj96

This is an empirical question ultimately, and I think you are just wrong on this. Google and facebook know, their algorithms figured out long ago that what interest people is not measured and balanced, or even true, but rather what is polarising, extreme, and evoking strong emotions.

My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really. — ChatteringMonkey

Nations- being the sum of individuals, have nothing to do with morals? So a nation can act however it pleases against another nation with no consideration for ethics? Please.
Russian is at war with Ukraine at this very moment.
As a nation it is not moral to go to war with another and cause thousands of deaths, pain and suffering.

That isn't to say that every Russian is at fault. Many Russians disagree with the war and want nothing to do with it. It is the government (democratic or tyrannical) which is responsible for the morality of international relations with another country.

In a dictatorship the action of a nation towards another is the whim of one person. In a healthy democracy the action of a nation towards another reflects the conscience and values of each individual - as their vote did contribute to what pathways are allowed or disallowed by leaders.

National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. But sadly in some governments it only reflects the morality of a few - in the interests of individual good rather than the greater good.

The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market. — ChatteringMonkey

Agreed in the sense that the largest powers should be the ones to set an example. Disagree that they are the only nations that can. Of course they're not.

With current competition and the heftier cost of renewables the ideal way to change is unanimously and simultaneously with one another as a collective of nations so that no individual nation suffers market disadvantage.

But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way.

Granted some have had a natural geographical advantage (Iceland for example). So the switch to renewables is really more crucial an argument between countries which produce the most fossil fuels and not those that have readily available renewable alternatives.

It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil).

But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way. — Benj96

No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.

And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world.

It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil). — Benj96

It's to be expected, we have been externalising environmental costs and other costs that don't directly impact us for the entirety of our history (maybe there were some exceptions, but they didn't make it in any case). It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part.

National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. — Benj96

They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem.

No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.

And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world. — ChatteringMonkey

You highlight some valid particularities here. I will reconsider my approach based on that info I didn't know previously. Yes maybe they aren't really representing the world at large

It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes agreed overpopulation is a big issue in all of this. The world wasn't designed for such abundance of a highly demanding apex species.

They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem — ChatteringMonkey

It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.

People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.

What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve?

No, not with me, with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the undeniable evidence. — Mikie

He already said he's not denying climate change.

People believe in a flat earth and deny the holocaust -- I have no interest in engaging with them either. — Mikie

No relation to any of his points. A clear sign of plugging your ears and serving only as a mouthpiece for your echo chamber.