Carbon Footprint per capita (I wasn't talking money).

So would bullying China then help more? I doubt it, especially when the country is suffering from blackouts. — ssu

I think you'll find in terms of poverty China and India are miles apart. The US, Europe, China and Australia cannot be 'bullied' as they are doing pretty damn well. China, US and Australia have to step up, and Europe needs to push harder too.

In India 1 million die a year of starvation related causes (prior to pandemic). MANY more are in extreme poverty now than before. Per capita India is nothing. Per Capita the US is WAY ahead of China.

These may be old but hey paint a picture: https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/

Canada and Russia is understandable to a degree due to weather. Other high output have tiny populations, but can do much more.

I completely agree with you then, ideally finite fossil fuels that are still left, should be rationed wisely to transition to a post-fossil fuel economy. — ChatteringMonkey

But we cannot expect countries like India to stop using coal (nor will they). This is the big problem.

Sure we probably could do it eventually, colonize Mars, but at what cost right? What's the rationale behind blowing a ton of resources when we could use those same resources with more tangible effects here on earth? — ChatteringMonkey

Because the resources are tiny in the bigger picture and the technological advancements could be phenomenal - leading to more applicable ways to combat the problem. Dick measuring or not it doesn't matter if it pushes our limitations in regards to how to survive in hostile environments and figure out a way solutions to dealing with such problems on the way.

then again it's impossible to actually calculate the intangible long-term effects to society at large for projects like these. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course. But we know such projects can and have bore fruits. Going to the Moon and creating weaponry for WW2.

And then there's the more traditional critique of this being the mind-set that got us into trouble in the first place, i.e. humanity standing above and beyond nature and the world, constantly trying to control it. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't see much distinction between humanity and nature. We've impacted the globe and will continue to do so. That is not 'unnatural' even though some wish to frame this as 'against nature'. We are able to make mistakes and see possible future mistakes (and correct them) whereas other species cannot do this.

We are not going to go extinct nor is it likely human knowledge will just be erased overnight.

No one saw a solution to many problems humanity has faced along the way. That is why they are called problems. Enough people seem to care to make something happen and more are starting to be practical rather than reactionary.

I also despair when people belittle what Elon Musk has done and is doing. Pushing scientific knowledge and putting ideas to the test will lead to advances that could help everyone. In terms of research into how to colonize Mars it is obvious that anything we learn do that will help us to manage the situation on Earth (he can do it whereas governments cannot justify such things due to lack of public backing).

There's upper physical limits to how much more energy-efficient you can get in the production and distribution of energy. Sure there is still room for improvement there, but not enough I think for renewables to replace fossil fuels entirely. — ChatteringMonkey

I wasn't suggesting replacing all fossil fuels just being more efficient with them. There isn't any realistic scenario (with known tech) atm that would allow every country to stop using fossil fuels. Food production wastes a lot!

Nuclear power maybe could have gotten us there, but as you said this project should've started decades ago because it takes time. — ChatteringMonkey

Better late than never. If it turns out the estimates made are more in our favour such actions NOW could actually make a big difference.

I used to be more of a techno-optimist, thinking we'll find a way etc... But what I and a lot of people with me didn't and don't really appreciate is how exceptional fossil fuels really were and how much they changed the game. It was literally reserves of stored and compacted solar energy that had been accumulating over millennia, gushing out of the ground... 1 gallon of oil is the energy-equivalent of 5 years of human labor, for a fraction of the price. We were wasteful because we could. — ChatteringMonkey

Well if we don't look to this as a way to deal with it then we may as well roll over and die. No thanks!

There is a lot to be said for taking advantage of fossil fuels. Mistreat a horse and it dies. Mistreat fossil fuels and it doesn't protest.

You often hear it's only a matter of political will to convert fully to renewables etc... but has anyone actually seen a plan something other than these high-level abstract calculations that just gloss of particularities of different sectors and industries like say metallurgy, manufacturing etc... How are we generating enough heat with renewables to make steel to name just one thing? — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think any Western government has the strength to do anything much. China can act instantly due to the political setup whereas Russia appears to be disrupting things as switching to MORE gas is better than using coal - not ideal but 'better'.

I dunno, I think we won't get there in terms of energy production, if not because of strictly theoretical limitations, then because of practical issues with converting to other energy-sources. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but this seems by far the most likely scenario to me, that we will have to reduce our energy-consumption, which ultimately means a lack of economic growth too because those always have gone together. — ChatteringMonkey

My point was more or less that if we only used what we really needed (in terms of strict regulations on industry) then we'd use less and growing countries would then adopt these techniques as they'd effectively save them resources. Such things will buy more time if nothing else. In terms of agriculture it would help a huge amount.

More efficiency would probably not translate into a lack of economic growth. I don't see how it would tbh?

The models are probably pretty accurate in what they do. Problem is that what they do doesn't necessarily tell us a lot about how the real world will evolve. They are basically saying we are just climate scientist, we will bracket/make abstraction of everything other than the physics of climate change... and leave messy and complex things like societal and economic feedbacks to someone else. No way we would have stable societies and growing economies all the way up to some of these projected temperatures. — ChatteringMonkey

No doubt the models are improving. There are blind spots though in our knowledge and model need constant tweaking. The human factor cannot be factored in. There are many other factors that are uncertain too such as the effect of the Gulf Stream.

I believe there is no reason we cannot. It depends on whether you believe we have decent societies today or not. I don't think so in general but things have turned around a lot over the last century or so. We're still very much in a period of social adjustment.

Note: EU and UK is behind on GM foods still. They are only just starting to ease up on the paranoia. Again, better late than never :)

It doesn't matter what governments decide that much because they have limited power and I don't see people anywhere that people are willing to give up their freedom today for something they cannot fathom happening tomorrow.

If there is a focus on agriculture, the oceans, greater energy efficiency and on research & innovation in new tech. I think those combined would be a positive step.

A lot will rely on China, Russia and Germany I think. Given the current change in Germany we could see something more concrete established between Russia and Germany. I'm pretty sure Russian tensions are high because of the change in Germany and this could lead to some steps in the right direction.

I don't have any faith in the US government but from the US the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area.

There has to be some serious technological advancements soon that can be exported to developing countries. Maybe solar and wind will help a bit more but the crux seems to be energy storage or just simply efficient use of energy. An agricultural revolution that can be exported to poorer nations would be ideal so anything in that area would be a useful focus imo.

The decent thing the US government could try and do is ban gas guzzling cars ... but I don't see that happening because it would require a more authoritarian rule (something that would be opposed with violence in the US by the citizens).

I certainly don't think the world should be looking to the US to do anything significant or view that nation as leading the way.

One thing is for certain. I DO NOT think anyone should be bullying countries like India. They have problems of their own and it is delusional to expect them to starve their people to death (more than they are already).

@ChatteringMonkey I think the biggest problem is just a simply lack of efficiency. There is too much waste in terms of production and distribution. Sadly these issues are often exacerbated by fears of new technologies. An example of this is the fear of nuclear power (very clean!) that could've already helped to turn the tide a little if nations had started to build next generation reactors a decade ago ... the problem was the cost and public pushback.

Energy use will not decrease (unless poverty increases or population decreases) but efficiency has too either way.

The real hope lies in the scientific models being inaccurate in our favour. It certainly isn't worth gambling with the future and blindly hoping our understanding of how the climate functions is limited enough for us to have made an overestimate when we could just as easily have underestimated the problem.

One thing I would also like to highlight is the kind of nonsense strewn around when people claim to be 'authors' when they've never actually written a book, or have only literally written one terrible book.

This seems to have bled into many areas as some kind of weird 'feel good' rubbish that does little more than belittle those who have spend years and years honing a craft.

You are NOT a philosopher if you've never bothered to read any philosophical work. That said I don't think you're much of a philosopher if you merely the brief accounts of others work rather than the actual work itself. I'm reminded of one guy (who I respect to this day) that went on about Kant a whole lot ... after years of exchanges I actually got around to reading Kant (without guided assistance) and then challenged some of his thoughts after telling him I'd spent a whole year reading and rereading one of Kant's works. He then told me he'd never actually read any of his works in completion to get his degree in philosophy as there wasn't time to do so and nor had he found the time to do so late into his life and retirement. I was baffled by this because he had repeatedly spoke with such authority on the matter and berated others for not 'putting the work in'.

At least I thank him to this day for giving me a good reason to pick up A Critique of Pure Reason and challenging myself.

I think there is something to be said for addressing philosophical questions secluded from the ideas and thoughts of others so one simply isn't trapped in a certain mindset.

Meaning the opposite problem would be to have a world where every philosopher approaches the same issues in the same manner tat everyone before them has done with little to no new insight.

From a personal perspective I'm unsure if I'd be in a better position viewing the thoughts of others on this or that philosopher/philosophy earlier or later. This is something that falls into all pedagogical categories really.

My advice to anyone reading any philosophical work is not to use a guide if they want to the most out of it. People do generally ignore me because it probably takes longer and is often more frustrating to read something you struggle to grasp/understand yet keep on keeping on. Then there is basic life experience. Some philosophical works make more sense with age.

NOTE: None of this is meant to say NEVER look at other people's perspectives and work on this or that area, it is more or less a warning that if you don't struggle and persist you may miss out on the reward of finding something fresh yourself and reaching a point where you can teach yourself how to learn mor efficiently in the future.

We do stand on the shoulders of giants for sure. Worshipping such giants isn't wise though (think of how Aristotle was revered and what Copernicus did). This is why I'm saying most are better off as Scholars or Thinkers not both. Trying to straddle both seems to result in the kind of blind worshipping expressed by those who opposed (or rather dismissed) Copernicus.

I don't understand. — T Clark

Be a Scholar or a Thinker. Trying to be both will usually end up in a mess. Good scholars are probably hard to come by nowadays because it is not exactly fancy work they do.

By Scholar I mean explaining the views and opinions of a text/philosopher rather than forcing one's own views onto it. By Thinker I mean not taking any oppositional stance against a philosophy but rather looking at problems and questions in order to address them or clarify their meaning in a more crystalline form.

A lot of what I see today is 'this person/philosophy is wrong because ...'. I don't care for it. I want either a full analysis of a philosopher/philosophy in a dispassionate manner OR to just see someone go at a problem rather than act in pure opposition to this or that perceived ideological stance.

With too many people dallying between the two we end up with poor scholarly works (opinions cast as reporting) or a lack of original investigation (reporting cast as insight).

You've probably heard of the old reference to science being 99% stamp collecting. How would you analogise philosophy in this manner?

It doesn't anymore than consumption of chocolate.

In my opinion, there's a direct correlation towards IQ and beauty and aesthetics itself. — Shawn

Opinions are opinions. Evidence works better. There is a vague link between health and wealth and IQ but it isn't massive. It is a 'factor' not a 'determining factor'.

So, I’d like to put forth the hypothesis that I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys. I have expressed my skepticism about western philosophy many times before on the forum. Rather than being defensive about it, I have decided to raise laziness to the level of sanctified philosophical principle. Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself. — T Clark

I see two distinctions. The Scholar (those who study philosophers/philosophies with little to no bias in a dry and methodical manner) and the Thinker (those who just observe and play with their thoughts in regards to what is observed).

In regards to philosophy in general I genuinely think this is one area of human knowledge where we’d benefit if the field was more polarised between the two with fewer vying to claim hold of both ends.

The g factor is a thing. That is about all we know. The IQ test was originally made to distinguish children with mental issues so they could be better taught in a more specialised environment. They were never intended to measure the high end of the scale only find the lower end so they could be helped out.

IQ tests that score higher and higher are less and less accurate. IQ tests now also come in many different forms aimed at different groups.

We know higher IQ (g factor) generally relates to higher all round achievement but it isn’t necessary for high achievement (whatever that maybe) nor does having a higher IQ mean you’ll ‘achieve’ anything.

There is a lot of misconceptions surrounding IQ tests. The bottomline is they do measure something generally referred to in the field as the g factor (but it is not an amazingly accurate measure of g and we don’t even know exactly what g is other than to say the higher it is in some individuals the more it seems they’re able to solve novel problems others cannot or do so quicker than others can.

Really though comparing people in this manner is kind of pointless as it is like comparing the art of a musician to the art of a sculptor. We can roughly agree on what music is passable and what sculptures are okay, but cross comparisons only hold so much weight. A bad singer can be successful and a great singer can receive no success. Mostly it seems to be down to planning and hard work when it comes to success, yet for extraordinary success a latent ability and/or luck are key ingredients.

Note: By ‘success’ I mean creations and/or solving problems not ‘living a good life’.

What should I do about this? — Shawn

Take up some form of art.

I wouldn't say it's a fact, but from all surface appearances there does seem to be more division assumed based on conceptions of who someone is, what they think and why they think it in rather simplistic terms (ie. for Brexit=Racist or Against Trump=Marxist).

I don't believe most people in a face-to-face environment would so quickly resort to oversimplifying the position of who they're talking to.

A strange comedic reference to this kind of thing is Bill Burr (or maybe someone else?) where someone complained about him and he called them up to address their issue. They were reasonable and he kind of said it was more about people wanting/needing to be heard by someone.

I think there is something to that as I do sometimes write here because I just want/hope someone will listen ... not because I think I'm write but because it seems human to act like. The stuff I write PURELY to myself is honest whilst anything in the public domain is necessarily buried under some kind of neurosis I believe.

It certainly was Bill Burr joking about how men love the interent because theyt can go back to being immature kids again where you just walk up to people and say 'I don't like your face!' without caring much about anything. To do this to someone in person would result in broken noses for a lot of people :D

A agree though. It is hardly new that people react badly to what they don't understand. GM foods paranoia is something many Green people still cling to.

That sounds very political! :D

The ‘west’ should absolutely keep cutting carbon emissions. My key point is that investing in new technologies gets thing solved more quickly (example creating vaccines that pass safety regulation within a year or two when they usually take around much longer).

The population is expanding still so we will inevitably keep using more fuel as their infrastructures improve and expand. Not doing so will effectively hold these countries down economically and they’ll exploit their natural resources in an inefficient manner. The most likely net effect then is that the amount of fossil fuels being burned isn’t going to decrease that dramatically so I, and others, simply point out that investing in research and developing technologies in this area would be a very good idea.

Whatever we do in more ‘developed’ countries will be replicated by rising nations - in food production, manufacturing and energy consumption. Saying we don’t know when we’ll develop better means of energy production is nothing like saying we don’t know how to. There are investments in these technologies but they should really be much much more. Thankfully private industry does invest in this kind of thing because governments simply don’t have the clout to do so (barring dictatorships).

With food production there is far more scaremongering involved regarding GM foods that have held us back.

Here is someone who quietly and calmly states some scientific facts regarding misconceptions: prof. David Hume - The Genes in our Food.

A lot of what he says are what most would regard as ‘the wrong approach’.

All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. I'm benumbed by such a reply, I certainly didn't expect it at a philosophy forum. — baker

It is the way in the internet works. I keep pointing this out to some but they seem to want to win the argument and mock others rather than do anything constructive.

I’m guilty of it myself in the past too. I’m entirely sure why it is people behave like this tbh.

There is that I guess. We're not exactly great with dealing with threats over the horizon though.

I've said for years education is key ... but frankly I don't even know what that means or where to begin :D Often enough our mistakes lead to discoveries. I don't think we'll ever give up though and the further we get into this age of communication the better our chances of getting through it mostly intact.

Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important.

Because I gave a link it doesn't mean I hang on his every word. I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist?

I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'.

The science is that we'll need billions and billions of solar panels to replace other sources (not that I am saying that is the plan). Solar is something that should be used more widely in richer countries for sure! Wind power is currently more viable I think, but not everywhere is great for it.

I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. I look to see what is a reasonable mistake to make and what isn't.

Small things do count. We can individually make small steps. Really though I am COMPLETELY pessimistic about what will happen but I hope for the best. That said I don't believe in acting like the sky is going to fall on us either.

Nothing comes for free. Humanity has taken massive strides and we're going to have to pay for it one way or another (as is always the case). I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others as the brief uplifting feeling you get will have to be paid for by everyone else trying to build bridges rather than walls.

There are good people in positions of power trying to make a difference. They will fuck up. They will make the right call for the wrong reasons, or the wrong call for the right reasons.

My general view of humanity is we don't think we react. If we see a fire in the garden we grab and it and bring it into our house to figure out how to put it out. Sometimes the house catches fire and sometimes we get lucky and realise how lucky we were after the matter of fact.

What it boils down to for me is I see money and resources being poured into areas that make a negligible difference (if anything) because it suits the media's narrative (which is nearly always hyperbolic).

This has infected how governments respond too. This is clear in the whole Covid reaction too. At first no one cared and now they all care WAY too much after the main fear has mostly subsided (ie. developing a vaccine). Now we're gaping into a chasm of increased poverty and less reason to be concerned about the environment.

We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet.

I just hope for, but don't expect, people to actually start learning to resist calling each other 'stupid' or boxing them up in a package of some ism so as not to listen to them anymore. I don't ever expect to get there myself fully I just hope to improve, adjust and try and be true to what I think rather than worry to much about what others think and do. The age old 'live by being an example' but constantly failing :D

Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. — Olivier5

I know. China is looking into nuclear innovations.

The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi

For Africa and Asia it will continue to swell. For everywhere else not a great deal. Population stability comes through decreasing poverty. Energy consumption is a primary marker of poverty.

Energy consumption in a country (per person) is generally higher the higher the GDP. This is why I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption.

The issue is not IF we should use more energy but HOW we source this energy. Solar is a possibility for Africa perhaps but for many other places relying on the weather isn't very practical. Innovations in new materials for insulation is one more step. There are many possibilities to use energy more efficiently tha go beyond mere production.

If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically - this is quite obvious in the US and Europe where the population is falling or only slightly increasing.

African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. — Olivier5

Yes. But if the aim is to reduce population growth then it is to Africa and Asia the focus needs to go. To stabilise the population it needs to go up up up NOT down. They will use more energy if they want to get out of poverty (it is necessary). To get out of poverty the cheapest sources of energy are what they'll look for.

It does sound counter intuitive to suggest that having more children will stop population growth.

I clearly don't have any solution to any of this (who does). My point was, and is, stopping economic growth means holding people back. It would not prevent population growth. To stop population growth the population has to rise as quickly as possible. Too many people is not an issue, the issue will be not enough energy resulting in more apocalyptic scenarios that will overshadow any climate change (barring a meteor strike).

In the western world there is more concern about 'super rich' people avoiding taxes and pointing at their carbon footprints than there is for looking at actual practical long term solutions to dealing with climate change. Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it.

I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. — Olivier5

It is a problem in and of itself trying to get people to look beyond their own doorstep. There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases. It is a vicious circle. The best way to break the cycle is to get as many people out of poverty as possible. Then we're in a better position to directly address the next steps of the process.

In the meantime cheaper fuel is the only realistic way of getting people out of poverty - by innovating more efficient coal power stations and gas power stations, whilst furthering research and development into nuclear power (which is NOT a solution but one step towards helping in a way much more significant than current renewables (ie. wind and solar).

These things are already happening but sadly the political scene is swept up in a frenzy of clueless individuals ranting about the end of the world and misrepresenting numerous data sets simply because they fit into their narratives. It has gotten so bad with the current media channels that where the ignorance was mainly on the side of those that are not in a position to be very well educated about matters as this now it has seriously infected those that should really know better (have some 'epistemic responsibility').

There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. — Olivier5

Of course. The alternative is it's already out of our hands though. That seems to be pretty clear. Events in the past have led to innovation where people presented doom and gloom scenarios. Crops were modified, immunisations got rid of diseases and we're not far off landing people on Mars.

Stating this isn't the same as saying 'don't worry about it'. I'm just saying things are not as bad as they seem half of the time but that doesn't mean we should worry and plan ... meaning it is better to PLAN then worry. The hysteria surrounding this topic is a detriment to making and understanding a reasonable course of action that can be implemented and adjusted when mistakes are made (which they will be) and/or new data presents itself (which it will).

Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;)

I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust. — Srap Tasmaner

That is likely because you know you can do the same without knowing and probably have. It is disturbing to understand this fully but once you can kind of accept it (although I don't mean do nothing about it) then there is a hope.

I believe, in my biased mind, that if I can do my utmost to guard against falling into this trap (even though I will) then it will have a knock-on effect. I might be wrong but it's a bias that doesn't seem to have too many obvious draw backs atm :D

Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too. — Olivier5

Because you say so or because this is your dream? Or are you just stating the obvious for no apparent reason. You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? This is because money is a dirty word now and no matter who states that global warming can only be resolved by economics no one wants to listen because to say that is to say to the general public 'rich is good and capitalism will save us' ... that is all it seems people hear when that is NOT what is being said.

The crux is the poorest need cheap energy. The more they get the less poor they will be and the more able they'll be to switch to more costly/efficient long term ways of consuming energy.

Another issue attached to this is food production and ideas of going vegan. There are professors at the height of the field who point out that meat production is perfectly viable and more environmentally friendly in many areas compared to soybean and other crops. The big issue is people are scared of 'GM foods' and make the whole industry less safe and more costly for everyone in terms of the monetary cost and the environmental cost (aka the ECONOMIC COST).

I'm not angry about this. It is just the way humans operate. It can be overcome with education to some degree ... and again we're back to square one with poverty preventing this. I'd say whatshisface who wrote the pop science books abut human history gets one thing spot on. We're led by 'stories' and currently this is a problem due to the way in which we're communicating - or rather 'trying' to communicate in the face of new technologies.

Nothing about this is simple. The only certainty I see in all of this is that humanity could probably do a lot more to be a lot more efficient in many different areas. The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at.

It is wrong to say that anything is always wrong no matter what! This is always the case ... er ... oops! Forgive me PLEASE! I was wrong.

BUT was I ALWAYS wrong? Not possible! So I retract my apology :)

Then why is he promoting battery-powered cars? If batteries are charged using fossil fuel derived energy they would be, due to efficiency losses at every stage, less green that fossil-fuel powered cars.

Also, nuclear energy is arguable undesirable as it is dangerous on account of the more enriched uranium you have the more potential there is for more nuclear weapons, and waste disposal is an
unsolved issue.

Also decline in reproduction rates due to increased prosperity will arguably be too little too late, even if the prediction panned out, which it may not In different cultures, places and circumstances. — Janus

He invests in everything I mentioned because he is looking at both short term and long term action as far as I can tell. Some will pay off more than others. The primary point I was making was that it is nonsensical to invest ALL money in an area that doesn't look to make any drastic changes unless it helps both long term and short term. Hence there needs to be, and actually is, a careful gamble on what currently help[s and what could help in the future.

Elon Musk main contribution is going to Mars and batteries. His view, last I heard, was to harness solar power by way of storing the power effectively. Investment in solar tech has made it more affordable for many (in fact I can see them lookin gout of my window right now). The reason people buy them is because it saves them money not because it saves the environment (trust me people in the country I reside are really not all that interested in the effects of global warming even though it has been effecting the farming industry due to salt water inundating fields).

Nuclear power is undoubtedly the best short term solution BUT the issue is that is it too costly. It is clean energy and has no carbon emissions (which we know is a major cause of current global warming trends). Luckily other countries are investing in creating the next generation nuclear power plants because they are concerned enough to realise that switching from coal power stations is needed (solar and wind are nowhere near replacing coal power). Gas is far better than coal too so more efficient gas power makes sense and it's cost coming down will help poor people out and reduce population growth. Of course I'm drastically oversimplifying this but it is no more oversimplified that stating that reducing carbon emissions will help lower the rate of global warming. The complexity comes with weighing and balancing what can be done and what is most cost effective (the later cannot be ignored!).

Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. If you call this 'scientism' and can only ask where you draw the line. I'm not denying there are problems but I am denying there is any one fix to these issues. As for CRIPSR you'll see the effects and controversy start to rise over the next decade or two.

What we should be doing is scrapping all privately owned cars that are not needed for practical purposes (trades, transport, agriculture etc), using public transport and electric powered bicycles, turning all the lights out at night, and adopting any measure we can, fuck the inconvenience, to reduce fossil fuel use; but I won't hold my breath expecting it to happen. — Janus

I don't wish to sound patronising here but I need to highlight this. This is the typical attitude of western living. In the parts of the world that matter people cannot CHOOSE between private and public transportation because they reside in countries that are too poor to accommodate this option.

In terms of in the west this is more viable but people won't do it so you need to provide private and cleaner transportation methods. For some (very few in global terms) it is an 'inconvenience' whereas elsewhere such things are a necessity of mere survival.

So yes, coal replaced in more economically developed countries sooner rather than later (yet no nuclear power stations on the horizon in terms of innovation or construction), whilst the other growing economies are responding by investing in nuclear power and using cheaper methods of energy extraction. To be fair Fracking has made a drastic reduction in gas costs and helped lessen the cost of living for many - again though hyperbolic media coverage and do-gooders have not promoted this venture just like they don't promote nuclear power (which is WAY better than solar and wind in term of energy production and could be much better with some innovation).

We may be lucky enough that there will be some super viable technological breakthrough in either cheap energy production or carbon sequestration, but we would be fools to depend on it. — Janus

It won't be 'luck'. Governments, and private developers, are actively investing in these areas (in the west it is more down to private ventures it seems) so they will happen. In some cases massive amounts of resources will be used with no real pay off. In other cases it will pay off. It will pay off for nuclear power I reckon because the stations current designs are pretty bad (the next generation will improve matters).

You seem to have bought into the fantasy of scientism, but you're by no means unique in that. I don't share your optimism, but then I also think that, if there is to be any solution, it will have to come from science, because very few will be willing to downscale their lifestyles. — Janus

I live by the code 'expect the worse and hope for the best'. I'm fairly aware of my own stupidity and other people's. I don't need to look at the negative aspects of life and the future because I expect them to happen all the time. I'm more fascinated by things than concerned about my or anyone else's so-called mortality.

I think I am correct in stating that better communication and cooperation across the board is something we should probably attend to more is reasonable enough. Beyond that I'm not in much of a position to say what should be done and only express what can be done and consider - with as little bias as possible - what the benefits and detriment of each options are and how they effect each other and how seemingly extrinsic factors might get tangled up in this too.

Hence, poverty is a big issue when it comes to climate change as it effects health, education, economy (basically energy production and use), population and the political mood. These are all fractured into different areas around the globe and reasonable and measured communication could do a lot to reduce hyperbole and get to the heart of what works rather than what seems like a good idea but is actually not tenable at the moment. That is why I don't see halting economic growth as anything like a viable plan in the near future (within this century) as it would effectively pin a large proportion of the Earth's human population in poverty for 'eternity'. I'm sure there are ideas about how it could work and reduce poverty and I'm all ears to hearing about that if you have any articles/ideas on this subject to share.

Burning more coal and gas is indeed the most likely near future scenario. Transition to green technologies cannot be achieved overnight. — Janus

I'm not saying these things are not worth investing in but I agree with the analysis of many (including Lomborg) when it comes to finding better solutions. The issue is the innovation comes from those that can afford to pay for it and those people are often viewed with contempt by middling income populations.

The cheaper the fuel the quicker the poor can benefit (as energy is huge issue). China will shift to more to nuclear power and hopefully make some innovations in this area that make it more affordable for other countries too.

If you look at the link I gave (gapminder) you can play around with some of the stats to see how some trends relate to each other. The singular most obvious one is that when GDP goes up so does healthcare and education, whilst population growth declines. If the primary issue is the number of people in your mind then getting people out of poverty is the way to do it (the data we have on this is pretty solid).

Note: There are numerous qualified people who openly state that a lot of the media coverage around this subject is hyperbolic but NONE of them deny the problem exists. The backlash they get is usually along the lines of 'pseudoscience' but generally they are just ignored because it doesn't suit the story some want to portray. Solar has made strides mainly thanks to multimillionaires (not government funding) but even they are quite aware (because it is their business) that some renewable avenues are nowhere near enough atm. Elon Musk knows that solar and wind power are not particularly useful in their current or near-future states.

There are some projects ongoing that could solve the energy issue (note: the term 'private'):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoZ9wGtruEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TceN_hOWhMY

In reality these are long term solutions. The current issue is making more efficient (effectively cleaner and more affordable) nuclear power stations and more efficient coal and gas power stations.

The reality is also that these things are being looked into and invested in. The reality is also that the media and political circles are more focused on negative news (as always) because just like those investing in the areas mentioned they are out to serve their own purposes. Sadly their purpose is to sell 'ideas' and 'stories' that satisfy the consumer (and the consumer wants drama and crisis rather than innovation and optimism).

Humans are quite strange creatures. There is a weird balance between our inability to think on larger scales (underestimation when it comes to exponential growth), inbuilt 'bias' (we adjust our opinions that skew to our beliefs rather than those that don't) and the ability to attempt the so-called 'impossible' either out of stupidity or overambition (and break the rules of what is and isn't considered 'impossible').

We cannot eradicate our 'flaws' but we can reimagine them and turn them into tools to guide us. People in severe poverty are screwed because they cannot afford to spend their time with any concerns other than what is directly effecting them from moment to moment and because they likely lack a decent education.

Studies in Kerala showed a lot of promise in the effects of education young women. If we wish to reduce population growth then educating young women is the most effective way to do this. Of course there are still what some would consider unforeseen problems that arise from such rapid societal shifts:

https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3053/wp341.pdf?sequence=1

I happen to be in the privileged position to have the time and energy to research numerous topics that interest me. I know most people don't and this is an issue of managing information - the economics of information (which is why this thread is interesting).

The most mind blowing thing to occur in our life times is not the computer or the internet. It is CRISPR ... it's not just that this technology has endless potential it is that it is incredibly cheap to boot! The answers to the climate problem will (in my mind) undoubtedly be littered with uses of CRISPR technology (be this is livestock alterations or through human alteration). With such world changing technologies comes a whole new swathe of problems and conjectures too.

Climate change doesn't really worry much tbh. Not that I think it is a trivial matter either.

convince me

If you're really getting your climate change information from Lomborg, you might as well go to Prager University. — Xtrix

By that I assume you mean you didn’t listen to what he says, ignored the data he presented and assume he’s a crackpot?

Note: He agrees with the data about how to deal with climate change NOT the politics. Sounds fine to me.

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$bubble$encoding$y$data$concept=children_per_woman_total_fertility&space@=country&=time;;&scale$domain:null&zoomed:null&type:null;;;;;;&chart-type=bubbles&url=v1

@Xtrix You can find stuff here: https://www.gapminder.org/

This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk

"Dooming" meaning what exactly?

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy. — Janus

I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided).

My point was that increasing the economic growth NOW will curb population growth (because it has everywhere) and improve living conditions (education and health) because it has everywhere. This is because people in poverty are not concerned about tomorrow because they're trying to survive - this is obvious.

When it comes to economics and resources the key factor regarding the ecology is to provide as many people as possible with cheap energy so they can more easily get out of poverty. The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet.

Negative growth will expand the population because when poverty increases the family unit increases in size - we know this it isn't a myth. The more developed economies in the world should be investing in improving more efficient energy options (nuclear for one) rather than feeding a broken mechanism that is going to do little to nothing in the long term.

If we wish to see the effects of an economic reduction we'll have all the evidence by looking at India (where 1 million a year die of starvation related causes prior to Covid). Now it is estimated that another 200 million will fall into poverty by the end of the year putting 50% of the entire population into poverty ... I don't see a 'shirking economy' as a viable solution for India. I see cheap fuel as a helping hand to those at the bottom.

That's kind of a a pointless point in the discussion we were having though.

Obviously.

If you have something to share about non-growth or shrinking economies that would be nice to hear.

A growing economy is viable and has been beneficial for larger and larger proportions of the human population as history has shown. As far as I see it the priority is to provide people with more, and better, education and resources.

I don't see how a shirking economy helps pull more people out of poverty that it puts into it (proportionally). I'm happy to look and learn though if you can provide details about this.

Why mention it as a solution then? Solutions tend to be at least partially viable if if they're framed as a solution.

I'm genuinely interested to learn about how a non-growth or shrinking economy will help.