Climate change and human responsibility

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think the biggest problem when it comes to reducing per capita carbon footprints is that trying to manage it at an international or national level doesn't work. It puts pressure on industry, which just passes the cost on to the consumers. It's not really fair to make consumers pay more, who are already paying out the nose, so that the billionaires on top can keep raking in the profits.

For it to work, it has to be a collaborated effort at the community level. Instead of trying to force people into reducing their carbon output by making it economically unviable, they need to be persuasive by making cities more logistical to reduce the need for energy. Promote producing and buying local products, better city planning, better public transport, that sort of thing.

It will require a complete cultural shift to change "car culture" in North America, to convince people that they don't need avocados from Mexico or a TV in every room of the house. That's the tricky part.

If you want to change the culture around owning a car, there needs to be ways for people to to move from point A to point B easier than jumping in their car to do so.

Are we doing enough with inner city transit? Outer city transit? Transit within higher population areas? Seems to me that there is always bickering going on when it comes to that.

It just annoys me that people like to bicker about over consumption, when a single family, or thousands of single families can't really make much of a difference even if they make the supposed changes that we think are needed.

I love to bang on the construction material drum, because concrete contributes up to 8% of yearly worldwide C02 emissions. For the most part it gets ignored because it isn't a 'sexy' problem to solve.

The other thing is removal of C02 from the atmosphere through proper forest management, water management and simply planting more trees. We all know that all those things are not looked after properly either, and again, these are not issues a single family, person or even thousands of individual families can change. It needs to be done on a big scale.

As trees grow, they absorb and store the carbon dioxide emissions that are driving global heating. New research estimates that a worldwide planting programme could remove two-thirds of all the emissions from human activities that remain in the atmosphere today, a figure the scientists describe as “mind-blowing”.

The analysis found there are 1.7bn hectares of treeless land on which 1.2tn native tree saplings would naturally grow. That area is about 11% of all land and equivalent to the size of the US and China combined. Tropical areas could have 100% tree cover, while others would be more sparsely covered, meaning that on average about half the area would be under tree canopy.

The scientists specifically excluded all fields used to grow crops and urban areas from their analysis. But they did include grazing land, on which the researchers say a few trees can also benefit sheep and cattle.

“This new quantitative evaluation shows [forest] restoration isn’t just one of our climate change solutions, it is overwhelmingly the top one,” said Prof Tom Crowther at the Swiss university ETH Zürich, who led the research. “What blows my mind is the scale. I thought restoration would be in the top 10, but it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nopy-emissions

And yet everytime the 'plant more trees' or 'better forest management' subject comes up, it gets dismissed.

I don't get it.

Also, this is something that could be funded to help people on an individual scale. One does not need to believe in 'climate change' in order to plant trees. Funding everything from individual backyard trees, shelter belts to full reforestation efforts could make a big difference. Right now if I want to plant some Manitoba Maple, I need to pay for them. Fine, but we won't get very far by requiring everyone to 'pay' for planting trees.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I feel like this is saying, if covid had been man made, and we let it run it's course for a while, then, instead of using vaccines to fix it, we just say "well, it would be dangerous to mess with nature." That ship sailed long ago. We created this, and there are solutions, so probably worth doing them.

That is a really bad comparison. Vaccines were based on some really good science, tested in a laboratory environment, then tested on a small number of people. Geoengineering is NOT like a vaccine. We're talking about trying some really radical and unproven #### that can only be done to the atmosphere we're reliant upon for life. We screw up efforts to geoengineer a solution, we kill the whole planet. Not just a few people, but EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Geoengineering is a last resort for good reason. It gets ####ed up and we all die, along with pretty much everything else on the planet.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

That is a really bad comparison. Vaccines were based on some really good science, tested in a laboratory environment, then tested on a small number of people. Geoengineering is NOT like a vaccine. We're talking about trying some really radical and unproven #### that can only be done to the atmosphere we're reliant upon for life. We screw up efforts to geoengineer a solution, we kill the whole planet. Not just a few people, but EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Geoengineering is a last resort for good reason. It gets ####ed up and we all die, along with pretty much everything else on the planet.

Well ya, if step one is to throw as much as you can at it. But no, step one is to start experimenting in limited tests that have no chance of causing catastrophic damage. Just like we don't inject every person on Earth with stage on vaccine trials. It's not like we don't know what happens when you put aerosols in the atmosphere, we have plenty of volcano data to tell us. We really have a pretty good idea of how it works, and the dangers. Now is the time to start smaller scale experiments.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Torture

There's a good Freakonomics podcast episode about this book if anybody doesn't want to read the whole book
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/save-the-planet/

I should have linked this. It’s what made me buy the book. I missed it the first time they aired it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The petry dish analogy isn't as inaccurate as people think it is.

What got us into this mess in the first place is a combination of overpopulation and overconsumption, not a lack of technology. That's what the wizards don't seem willing to acknowledge. You can't solve a problem by continuing on the trajectory that got you into it in the first place, and just assuming that technological advancements will save the day.

That's not to say the wizards are entirely wrong. If this problem is going to be solved, technology will play a key role. But it's a huge mistake to think that technology alone can get us out of this mess.

Yes we definitely need both the wizard and prophets mindsets to solve the problems of humanity. Limiting waste, charging for externalities, mitigating the human desire for more are all important. But so are technologies that aren’t perfect and allow us to consume more.

The book made me appreciate the prophet perspective much more than I did previously.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The petry dish analogy isn't as inaccurate as people think it is.

What got us into this mess in the first place is a combination of overpopulation and overconsumption, not a lack of technology. That's what the wizards don't seem willing to acknowledge. You can't solve a problem by continuing on the trajectory that got you into it in the first place, and just assuming that technological advancements will save the day.

That's not to say the wizards are entirely wrong. If this problem is going to be solved, technology will play a key role. But it's a huge mistake to think that technology alone can get us out of this mess.

Assuming the other side doesn't get it, or are unwilling to acknowledge something, is not a path to success or intelligent discourse.

By the way, the last crisis affecting humanity (also due to overpopulation) was the certainty of mass famine. In the 60/70s it was widely accepted that this was an unavoidable crisis, would be upon us within 10 years or less, and it was far too late to do anything about it.

Technology pulled us through. Without even breaking a sweat.

In hindsight, many people argue that it wasn't that desperate of a crisis. But that would be wrong. It was real. It was unavoidable. And it was beaten.

I am not saying that climate change will be so thoroughly beaten with some simple technological advances. Or that technology alone can beat this. But I am saying that humanity's ability to generate technological advances - when absolutely needed - should never be under-estimated.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you want to change the culture around owning a car, there needs to be ways for people to to move from point A to point B easier than jumping in their car to do so.

Are we doing enough with inner city transit? Outer city transit? Transit within higher population areas? Seems to me that there is always bickering going on when it comes to that.

It just annoys me that people like to bicker about over consumption, when a single family, or thousands of single families can't really make much of a difference even if they make the supposed changes that we think are needed.

I love to bang on the construction material drum, because concrete contributes up to 8% of yearly worldwide C02 emissions. For the most part it gets ignored because it isn't a 'sexy' problem to solve.

The other thing is removal of C02 from the atmosphere through proper forest management, water management and simply planting more trees. We all know that all those things are not looked after properly either, and again, these are not issues a single family, person or even thousands of individual families can change. It needs to be done on a big scale.



https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nopy-emissions

And yet everytime the 'plant more trees' or 'better forest management' subject comes up, it gets dismissed.

I don't get it.

Also, this is something that could be funded to help people on an individual scale. One does not need to believe in 'climate change' in order to plant trees. Funding everything from individual backyard trees, shelter belts to full reforestation efforts could make a big difference. Right now if I want to plant some Manitoba Maple, I need to pay for them. Fine, but we won't get very far by requiring everyone to 'pay' for planting trees.

I agree about trying multiple solutions for the climate crisis. But planting trees is never simple. To obtain peak carbon intake, monoculture would never work. How would scientists determine the correct trees, and if the correct trees are selected, will the trees allow for biodiversity on such a large scale? Otherwise, more trees than what was listed would need to be planted to reach the desired effect as you’re losing carbon intake due to the lack of biodiversity (example: agricultural produce with regards to monoculture vs multi-plant farming). This solution would also take considerable time as trees don’t reach maximum carbon intake until maturity, and then, old-growth trees cannot intake carbon as well as the younger mature trees. Planting this many trees could theoretically increase evotranspiration causing a possible warming effect, as there’s more water vapour in the air; however I have no citation to back that up, it’s just an assumption from my current line of work, which is in environmental science, notably water resource.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Assuming the other side doesn't get it, or are unwilling to acknowledge something, is not a path to success or intelligent discourse.

By the way, the last crisis affecting humanity (also due to overpopulation) was the certainty of mass famine. In the 60/70s it was widely accepted that this was an unavoidable crisis, would be upon us within 10 years or less, and it was far too late to do anything about it.

Technology pulled us through. Without even breaking a sweat.

In hindsight, many people argue that it wasn't that desperate of a crisis. But that would be wrong. It was real. It was unavoidable. And it was beaten.

I am not saying that climate change will be so thoroughly beaten with some simple technological advances. Or that technology alone can beat this. But I am saying that humanity's ability to generate technological advances - when absolutely needed - should never be under-estimated.

Solving famine was a money building exercise for everyone involved (except I guess maybe warlords in Africa). Solving the climate crisis will cost rich and powerful people money and jobs which will make it more difficult.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Solving famine was a money building exercise for everyone involved (except I guess maybe warlords in Africa). Solving the climate crisis will cost rich and powerful people money and jobs which will make it more difficult.

Technological breakthroughs often turn out to be financially rewarding. Whereas constraint tends to be costly. Another reason for optimism from the former.

[Street Pharmacist]

We don't actually need different technology to get 60-90% of the way there. It's the political will at this point. Realistically, the biggest low hanging fruit is simply going after efficiencies. Making buildings more efficient, vehicles more efficient, etc. Its the political will that's holding policy up.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Technological breakthroughs often turn out to be financially rewarding. Whereas constraint tends to be costly. Another reason for optimism from the former.

Well we’d better get on with a breakthrough. Neither carbon capture nor renewables are that, though they can part of the solution. I assume you’re talking about something more transformative like fusion?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Well we’d better get on with a breakthrough. Neither carbon capture nor renewables are that, though they can part of the solution. I assume you’re talking about something more transformative like fusion?

I'm not talking about anything specifically - breakthroughs are, by their nature, new technology. And I am no design engineer.

Regarding fusion though, that has been taunting and teasing us for my entire lifetime, but with no actual progress - I have long given up hope on that front. I remember news about 40 years ago where researchers thought they nailed cold fusion, but it turned out to be a hoax. The bastards.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you want to change the culture around owning a car, there needs to be ways for people to to move from point A to point B easier than jumping in their car to do so.

Are we doing enough with inner city transit? Outer city transit? Transit within higher population areas? Seems to me that there is always bickering going on when it comes to that.

It just annoys me that people like to bicker about over consumption, when a single family, or thousands of single families can't really make much of a difference even if they make the supposed changes that we think are needed.

I love to bang on the construction material drum, because concrete contributes up to 8% of yearly worldwide C02 emissions. For the most part it gets ignored because it isn't a 'sexy' problem to solve.

The other thing is removal of C02 from the atmosphere through proper forest management, water management and simply planting more trees. We all know that all those things are not looked after properly either, and again, these are not issues a single family, person or even thousands of individual families can change. It needs to be done on a big scale.

.

This was kind of my point. Using taxes on corporations just pushes the cost on to consumers. This does not change consumption since the vast middle and upper class are still so dependent on energy. their only option is to pay more money and save less for retirement.

It's easy enough for people with means to say, well just move closer to your work and catch transit, but our cities are not designed for that. Zoning has assured that there is a massive separations between where people live and where they work. There is very little housing available in high density work areas, and those that are there, are typically owned by foreign investors and charge rent that is unaffordable for most. Don't even think about buying. And course, a lot of residential areas close to industrial areas are complete dumps with high crime that you still can't afford. Commuting is really their only option.

Public transit is a joke. It mainly just moves people into the main retail/commercial areas where they can indulge their consumerism. For most people, it takes several hours to use public transit to get to work, which is terrible for finding family time, becoming an entrepreneur, and just enjoying life.

Despite those attempts, people still need to drive. As for creating an incentive for people to buy new electric car, it might surprise some people the average debt load the average Canadian carries. And you want them to buy a new car!?

Design out cities better... bottom line. I left the Vancouver area for 15 years and moved back 3 years ago and see the population explosion out in Maple Ridge. All mostly low-density residential, almost no commercial areas, and no industrial areas. That didn't exactly help anything.

People should live closer to where they work, but no one who actually works can afford to. Trickle down carbon taxes to those people, and you essentially end up removing them from the work force completely since it becomes easier to go on welfare than pay the costs.

I starts at the municipal level for zoning and building more high density residential. Get rid of foreign buyers whose only goal is to increase housing costs.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This was kind of my point. Using taxes on corporations just pushes the cost on to consumers. This does not change consumption since the vast middle and upper class are still so dependent on energy. their only option is to pay more money and save less for retirement.

It's easy enough for people with means to say, well just move closer to your work and catch transit, but our cities are not designed for that. Zoning has assured that there is a massive separations between where people live and where they work. There is very little housing available in high density work areas, and those that are there, are typically owned by foreign investors and charge rent that is unaffordable for most. Don't even think about buying. And course, a lot of residential areas close to industrial areas are complete dumps with high crime that you still can't afford. Commuting is really their only option.

Public transit is a joke. It mainly just moves people into the main retail/commercial areas where they can indulge their consumerism. For most people, it takes several hours to use public transit to get to work, which is terrible for finding family time, becoming an entrepreneur, and just enjoying life.

Despite those attempts, people still need to drive. As for creating an incentive for people to buy new electric car, it might surprise some people the average debt load the average Canadian carries. And you want them to buy a new car!?

Design out cities better... bottom line. I left the Vancouver area for 15 years and moved back 3 years ago and see the population explosion out in Maple Ridge. All mostly low-density residential, almost no commercial areas, and no industrial areas. That didn't exactly help anything.

People should live closer to where they work, but no one who actually works can afford to. Trickle down carbon taxes to those people, and you essentially end up removing them from the work force completely since it becomes easier to go on welfare than pay the costs.

I starts at the municipal level for zoning and building more high density residential. Get rid of foreign buyers whose only goal is to increase housing costs.

No doubt cities should be designed better here. But that's also something that can't be fixed anytime soon. So you're essentially punting a fix to 50 years down the road.

And again with the carbon tax, yes the costs are pushed onto you but you see a refund of the tax so you end up coming out even unless you are a big consumer. And the point is to make gas or whatever more expensive so people use less of it.

Citation needed for your claim that people will go on welfare instead of working because of the carbon tax.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

No doubt cities should be designed better here. But that's also something that can't be fixed anytime soon. So you're essentially punting a fix to 50 years down the road.

And again with the carbon tax, yes the costs are pushed onto you but you see a refund of the tax so you end up coming out even unless you are a big consumer. And the point is to make gas or whatever more expensive so people use less of it.

Citation needed for your claim that people will go on welfare instead of working because of the carbon tax.

Part of the solution was right there in his post, and is far from impossible. Much better public transit.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

I agree about trying multiple solutions for the climate crisis. But planting trees is never simple. To obtain peak carbon intake, monoculture would never work. How would scientists determine the correct trees, and if the correct trees are selected, will the trees allow for biodiversity on such a large scale? Otherwise, more trees than what was listed would need to be planted to reach the desired effect as you’re losing carbon intake due to the lack of biodiversity (example: agricultural produce with regards to monoculture vs multi-plant farming). This solution would also take considerable time as trees don’t reach maximum carbon intake until maturity, and then, old-growth trees cannot intake carbon as well as the younger mature trees. Planting this many trees could theoretically increase evotranspiration causing a possible warming effect, as there’s more water vapour in the air; however I have no citation to back that up, it’s just an assumption from my current line of work, which is in environmental science, notably water resource.

I don't think it is just about planting 'new' trees, or even just trees, but about protecting what we have, planting new, protecting forests, sustainable farming, soil protection, and researching what is best for the future.

Might want to stop clear cutting the Amazon as well.

Helping farmers move to no-till farming would help.

Inner city tree planting would help. Lots of cities are doing this already.

There is obviously enough research out there to help us get going on this front. More is needed, but the excuses are getting lame at this point.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Part of the solution was right there in his post, and is far from impossible. Much better public transit.

where I live, the fairly poor transit service was made worse this past year.
Transit costs a lot of money so they made cuts to service, especially to outlying parts of the city.
part of the cuts were made to bolster service in "high use areas" which already had good service.
they just made it harder for the majority of people to transition to transit.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In hindsight, many people argue that it wasn't that desperate of a crisis. But that would be wrong. It was real. It was unavoidable. And it was beaten.

The green revolution might be science’s greatest accomplishment. And yet most people don’t even know it happened. Just shows how powerful negativity bias is.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Part of the solution was right there in his post, and is far from impossible. Much better public transit.

I don't know Calgary - but the city design where I am basically makes getting a critical mass onto public transit impossible. The city is too spread out and outside of universities, colleges and downtown you don't have people lumped into areas enough to get to a position where you can make it something people will consider. Now a lot of cities in Canada are moving towards a city designed with transit in mind but that is still a long term solution.

Yes - you could improve it and they are trying in most places but unless the city is designed with public transit in mind you can't get many people on to it.

Incentivizing working from home is another solution to get people out of cars.

[CalgaryFan1988]

I share the same opinion about vehicles and emissions, but there isn't a lot of public knowledge surrounding large contributors to climate change such as palm oil. It's an extreme contributor and nobody seems to know or talk about it (in a general sense, not necessarily this thread).