But to say we need *more* fossil fuels, not less, is a recipe for certain destruction. — Manuel

The solution is a profound technological shift.

No, it isn't. Even with a profound technological shift we are depleting the earth. We need to use less. Estimates are average lifestyle of the 60s in Europe, which probably will be a little higher due to technological advances. But anything more isn't really sustainable.

The whole idea of battling climate change while attempting to maintain levels of prosperity is totally misguided and doomed for failure.

That’s exactly the one I was talking about here. Terrifying.

Even with a profound technological shift we are depleting the earth. — Benkei

There really isn't anywhere for it to go. It all just goes round and round.

not sure how to understand that comment. Are you referring to circularity? Because that only takes us so far. With continued growth the earth's capacity to replenish resources will not keep up nor will recycling. If I make 100 phones each year but only 50 are recycled, I still need resources for 50 phones. It's an important step to sustainability but degrowth is absolutely necessary.

F**king lunatics.

I make 100 phones each year but only 50 are recycled, I still need resources for 50 phones. — Benkei

True. That doesn't affect the climate, though.

It does. As natural resources are more difficult to mine, you need to spend more energy to get to it, which increases fossil fuel usage. But even if it didn't, the point really is that only focusing on energy use while not aiming at degrowth is a recipe for disaster all the same.

Running out of precious metals to make phones doesn't affect the climate. Burning any fossil fuels at all does. We either need to come up with a good way to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, or stop burning fossil fuels all together.

I suppose it's a win you realise at least one of the problems.

I suppose it's a win you realise at least one of the problems. — Benkei

:lol:

scrub CO2 from the atmosphere — Tate

That's what trees have been doing for...some time...sort of.



^{(↑ simplified, but probably good enough here)}

I guess it's not just a matter of inventing a cool CO₂ vacuum cleaner.

That's what trees have been doing for...some time...sort of. — jorndoe

Of course. Why would you think I don't know that?

, sorry, no offense intended. Deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, population growth, renewability, ..., all related. Just thought I'd make sure comments are on the same page.

population growth — jorndoe

Population growth is around zero in Europe, China, and the US. It's actually threatening to start going negative. Why do you think that is?

Running out of precious metals to make phones doesn't affect the climate. — Tate

Yes it does.

It’s not just cell phones. If we delete the supply of metals, we’re in serious trouble. Especially when do much green technology rests on these commodities.

Especially when do much green technology rests on these commodities. — Xtrix

On precious metals? Like what?

Yet another good summary from the New York Times’ Krugman:

There’s an obvious parallel between the politics of green energy and the politics of Covid-19. Many people chafed at the restrictions imposed to limit the pandemic’s spread; even mask requirements involve a bit of inconvenience. But vaccination seemed to offer a win-win solution, letting Americans protect themselves as well as others. Who could possibly object?

The answer was, much of the G.O.P. Vaccination became and remains an intensely partisan issue, with deadly consequences: Death rates since vaccines became widely available have been far higher in strongly Republican areas than in Democratic areas.

The fact is that one of America’s two major political parties appears to be viscerally opposed to any policy that seems to serve the public good. Overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of such policies doesn’t help — if anything, it hurts, because the modern G.O.P. is hostile to science and scientists.
And that hostility, rather than the personal quirks of one small-state senator, is the fundamental reason we appear set to do nothing while the planet burns.

And from the UN:

“Humanity faces ‘collective suicide’ over climate crisis, warns UN chief“

The solution to man-made climate change seems rather simple when viewed in a general sense: Delink the economy from carbon.

However, when we get down to specifics, we hit a wall - our technology, the engine of the global economy, is 100% carbon-based.

This, in my humble opinion, is the Gordian knot humanity is faced with!

What is needed is a bloody technological revolution! Can we do it? Necessity is the mother of invention.

It may not be necessary or even possible to give up carbon; we could at least try to reduce our carbon footprint to manageable levels ad interim.

Well Russia isn't exactly keen on stopping climate change (in large part due to it's reliance on it's gas), Brazil is currently run by a man who seems fine with letting the Amazon burn (at least hopefully until October), China is the world's biggest emitter currently, India isn't really that far off from China, and the US... well enough has already been said about that. — Mr Bee

Exactly, why destroying Europe as a relevant political actor on the world stage is ... wait, pretty great from fossil fuel exporters who deny the reality of climate change (or already bought their bunkers, and deny the stupidity of such a plan) point of view.

Pretty dark times indeed. Do you see any possible solution to this mess or has humanity royally screwed itself over for the foreseeable future? — Mr Bee

The reason cynicism tends to increase in the environmental movement with age is because the goal posts keep moving. First generation of environmentalists were concerned about humans causing the extinction of single species (carrier pigeon and dodo) and failing to preserve those species was viewed as "losing".

After the environmental movement failed (or society failed the environmental movement, I would say is more accurate) to create policies to preserve single species, the goal posts moved to entire ecosystems.

Where we are in that task is:

- Livestock account for 0.1 Gigatons of biomass
- Humans account for 0.06 Gigatons of biomass
- Wild mammals 0.007 Gigatons of biomass
- Wild birds 0.002 Gigatons of biomass

This shift from wild biomass to livestock represents about an 80% loss of biodiversity, in terms of genetic variation losses in damaged / collapsed populations.



"Conservation" has resulted in a lot of species not going entirely extinct that otherwise would, however, conservation simply delays the inevitable if the whole earth system is damaged to an extent to change things like ... climate comes to mind, thus wiping out even the small pockets of "conserved" nature. If the whole earth system is not cared for, these pockets of conservation can not be sustained over the long term as larger environmental changes.

Which is the general theme of the environmental movement of one faustian bargain after the next.

In short, the ecological apocalypse has already happened.

Now, the goal posts are moved to just basic survival of humans and earth as a going concern.

This is still achievable from an engineering point of view, and even on an apocalyptic landscape with 50-90% of the currently inhabitable earth no longer liveable, humans can likely survive on the poles. There are pathways to full extinction but these seem unlikely edge cases in terms of environmental collapse (such as oxygen depletion or turning the atmosphere toxic).

More damage to earth life and ecosystems is guaranteed, the question is how much more and how many more people will die in horrible ways.

Since the processes of discombobulation are unpredictable and chaotic, even relatively small things done now can have a large effect on where we end up on the biodiversity-loss-dystopian-collapse spectrum.

In terms of engineering and earth stewardship, multiple WWII scale efforts started now would have a decent change of more-or-less stabilising the climate and biodiversity.

Unfortunately, as we enter the "bill's come due" phase of our ecological destruction to fuel hedonistic thoughtless life styles, this destabilises political systems making coordinated action harder.

The last window to act in a "politically feasible way" was the 90s.

Hence all the buildup and focus on Kyoto.

Total fail.

This is still achievable from an engineering point of view, and even on an apocalyptic landscape with 50-90% of the currently inhabitable earth no longer liveable, humans can likely survive on the poles. There are pathways to full extinction but these seem unlikely edge cases in terms of environmental collapse (such as oxygen depletion or turning the atmosphere toxic). — boethius

Oh I have no doubt that humans will survive this in some form. They will start taking climate change seriously when it becomes an immediate concern (one can argue that it really is in some cases). Unfortunately it'd be too late in large part to stop the damage. In addition the failure to act will open up a whole host of other issues on which society will divide itself such as fights over natural resources, migration, and more pandemics (and judging by the way COVID was handled, it's not looking very good).

It's safe to say that this year has pretty much made me lose faith in humanity altogether. With all the recent events going on now, it's hard to be optimistic. Human nature is just inherently flawed and we probably deserve whatever is gonna come our way.

Unfortunately it'd be too late in large part to stop the damage. — Mr Bee

Yes, question is how much damage.

In addition the failure to act will open up a whole host of other issues on which society will divide itself such as fights over natural resources, migration, and more pandemics (and judging by the way COVID was handled, it's not looking very good). — Mr Bee

The window of political feasible solutions closes before, potentially a lot before, the window of strictly physically feasible solutions.

This was a big point of particular emphasis 20 years ago in the community of collapse analysts), that the time to act is when the system is stable and not unstable due to the consequences of the bill coming due.

It's safe to say that this year has pretty much made me lose faith in humanity altogether. — Mr Bee

Same.

I suppose it is necessary to try nonetheless, but it does feel more and more futile.

With all the recent events going on now, it's hard to be optimistic. — Mr Bee

Agreed.

Human nature is just inherently flawed and we probably deserve whatever is gonna come our way. — Mr Bee

Of course we can debate human nature, but I think we would agree that we are now experiencing the consequences of our actions.

Of course we can debate human nature, but I think we would agree that we are now experiencing the consequences of our actions. — boethius

We are certainly experiencing the consequences of some people's actions. Yes it does seem futile; yes it is hard to be optimistic; yes some people have lost faith in humanity.

But look: there are 7+ billion pretty much powerless consumers in the world. We tend to blame ourselves for the climate disaster. Maybe we are all complicit, but none of us are guilty of being prime movers in energy production, manufacturing or consumption. We are small cogs in a great wheel, but we do not turn the wheel. We do not grind; we are ground up.

There are guilty parties--the several million rich, powerful people who have steered the economy of waste in both energy and materiel; who have worked over the last century to put us all in private cars; who have always chosen the long term environmental loss over short term profitgain; who have always opted to keep most workers' heads just above water.

You - bricklayer; you - librarian; you - farmer; you - janitor; you - mechanic; you - teacher; you - factory worker; you - accountant; you - grocery store clerk; you - nurse; you - teacher... None of you were ever in a position to steer steer the economy, for better or worse. You are not to take the blame: you are the victim.

:100:

But look: there are 7+ billion pretty much powerless consumers in the world. We tend to blame ourselves for the climate disaster. Maybe we are all complicit, but none of us are guilty of being prime movers in energy production, manufacturing or consumption. We are small cogs in a great wheel, but we do not turn the wheel. We do not grind; we are ground up. — Bitter Crank

Sure you can say we're not the primary cause of alot of our problems, but we aren't entirely blameless. Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. In addition, the people who do want to do something are successfully demonized into obscurity by the media. We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. Alot of people are actually celebrating the death of the US climate bill right now, primarily because the issue has been so politicized.

Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. — Mr Bee

Whether the politicians are corrupt or not, whether we voted them in or they just muscled their way
in, may not matter that much. The State has interests that are pursued using the procedures and personnel available to it. (On the one hand, the State is an abstraction; on the other hand, the State has authorizing legislation, a permanent government, courts, and interested parties to make sure things run "the right way".)

Our country was set up to be the kind of country it was / is. The rights of property were / are paramount. "Nature" and the original inhabitants of the American land were of little interest to the State. "Individualism" might have been important, but most run-of-the-mill "individuals" (lacking wealth) were of little importance.

We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. — Mr Bee

The individuals who did matter, and who in various ways animated the State to begin with, were the oligarchs. The oligarchs and the States have a close relationship, and overturning one will require overturning both. That is a tall order, even for 7 billion people. Not impossible, but very difficult. Why? for the simple reason that most people are decent folk who are not made of the abrasive, corroding stuff that oligarchs and crooked senators are made of.

Plus, the state knows how to use violence in its self-defense, and the state have a lot of violence at their disposal. Gunning down the rioting masses (or gassing them) won't bother the oligarchs. To quote one oligarch "If the masses want to die, then they should get on with it."

All of this is to say, again, the 7 billion are not to blame.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-20/united-kingdom-record-temperatures-fires-burn-london/101252668

The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution is now reaping the whirlwind.

:groan:

Sure you can say we're not the primary cause of alot of our problems, but we aren't entirely blameless. Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. Alot of people are actually celebrating the death of the US climate bill right now, primarily because the issue has been so politicized — Mr Bee

Everything you mention is true, and also designed/engineered. By whom?

By a class of people -- the wealthy, the plutocracy -- who buy or appropriate academics, clergy, politicians, and journalists. They establish and fund think tanks, own and control mass media companies, infiltrate colleges and universities, and deliberately use all of it as a means of control by sowing discord and confusion among the employees, among the poor, working and middle classes.

The plutocracy have also undermined, weakened, polarized, or destroyed social and civic institutions; most importantly, labor unions. That was one of the first things to wage harsh war against and to stamp out as best as possible. A very smart, strategic move on their part. But it reveals how much of a threat and a nuisance to their power labor unions were (and are). Education, access to knowledge and information, was also a threat and still is -- but it can be owned, censored, filtered, skewed.

The point being that yes, we can indeed topple them -- and they know it. The power always lies in the hands of those with greater number...and there's simply more of us than them. Look all around the world, currently and historically, for examples of people rising up and taking over. This is a great fear of any ruling class, and it's a great fear of the plutocracy. So they do everything they can to divide, polarize, distract, deflect, etc. -- all that you mentioned. Are the people to blame for this? The power imbalance corresponds to level of responsibility, in my view -- and the imbalance is very, very skewed towards the wealthy.

We have to fight it through love and empathy and listening. Because they've won over too many people -- and if we all dig in our heals, and no one breaks the ice (or tries), then we're doomed.

Indeed, the oligarchs know that when the people unite against them they can't win, which is why they try to break people apart whenever they can by sowing discord. In fact, I think that that is part of the reason why today's politics is so divisive.

But the fact that people can be so easily manipulated like this is also part of reason why I said I've lost faith in humanity. The rise of Nazi Germany has shown us all that people can be duped into hating and committing heinous atrocities against one another with just the right amount of persuasion, and the fact that people can just let someone like Hitler come into power terrifies the hell out of me. Hitler may be gone, but what made him so powerful in the first place is still with us, likely leading to the rise of similar figures.

I mean, out of all of the problems humanity is facing right now, it seems like people are more interested in talking about culture war nonsense than anything else, all while the wealthy make off. Some billionaire just bought one of the biggest social media websites out there (well not anymore) and people actually celebrated.