One of the things that makes certainty hard in any of this is we are not rationally capable of anticipating future events both good and bad. There could easily right now be elements that extend our timetable and elements that dramatically reduce it. I'd advise less towards seeking an "is it worth it" / "can we do it" type of mindset and more towards a "how can we continually improve the situation" way of going about it.
Yeah and I apologize if it may seem dark, that's not my intention, but if we cant save things, then we don't have to worry about it. We will be gone and that will be that. But, if we can do something, and we can, we should as people upon this planet take efforts to save ourselves and understand and improve, more.
Ahh- it's a documentary, first result in YouTube. Excellent soundtrack. But he hypothesised that time is moving towards a singularity which he called that, through exponential growth of technology and exponential increase in the complexity of societies, communication etc. The idea of the technology singularity wasn't really a thing when he died, which is a real shame, he'd have so much to say today.
Just to clarify, Vernor Vinge came up with the singularity concept in the 80s and it was popularized in the 90s. McKenna called it the omega point but you’re right, he essentially saw it as an upcoming transcension to god hood through both our conscious development and scientific knowledge.
It a shame McKenna died, I would have loved him to see the singularity.
Me too, it's really sad, he had a solid 30 years in him yet. He honestly seemed to buy that it would come in 2012, but tbh his timewave theory is very flawed. But damn, the guy was talking his mouth off about a rapidly approaching singularity way before it was mainstream, he sure had the mushroom vision. He's top of my list for ressurection and/or an afterlife dinner party.
The book Ministry for the Future. It’s the only hope I’ve felt since I watched The Age Of Stupid. We’re not going to do anything. The rich will mostly survive like they always do.
I’m always surprised when climate engineering doesn’t feature in these discussions. The garden hose method is cheap and will reduce temperatures. Therefore it will be deployed if things start to look bad.
It may well cause shifting rain and weather patterns, which will cause climate migrations. But if we don’t totally freak out and nuke each other, we have time.
what's the garden hose method? is that using a balloon and hose to put droplets in the atmosphere?
I've heard of using boats to create clouds over the ocean to reflect sunlight, but not the garden hose method.
The fantasies some of the deniers in this thread are spouting are just embarrassing and evidence that we will convince ourselves of anything to cling to hope.
The same people claiming the climate crisis isn’t that serious are probably the same ones that think an ice free Arctic will be great for international trade. Absolutely lunatic.
Yeah I kind of don't know why I'm bothering with that one guy. No critical thinking, no engagement with the information available, just repeating whatever appeals to them.
The two matters are on very different time scales. The Singularity, when it happens, will happen fairly abruptly. Climate change happens at comparatively glacial speed, much like our lives.
When and if the Singularity happens the game board is tipped over. The rules are all changed. If it serves the source of the Singularity, climate change will be fixed. It will do it in is own time as it is very doable currently.
I'd highly recommend that you look into [drawdown](https://drawdown.org/solutions) if you haven't yet – they do a really nice job of distilling the reductions and sequestration necessary to get to net zero by mid-century, include costs, savings, and potential profits. One of the things you'll see with it, is that there's no silver bullet approach. DAC is cool, but that's far from the only thing, and there are lots of other solutions we can do now that will have a huge impact.
And its important to point out that while engineered carbon capture solutions (like DAC) are theoretically the most efficient, as many have pointed out, the technology needs more innovation (much more efficient absorption, lower energy inputs, lower energy on the de-sorption side) and on top of that, needs more political will to have governments build the necessary infrastructure, because as you point out, the free market is not going to support what's necessary.
But most models don't have scaled DAC online-ing meaningfully for another 15-20 years. While the tech matures and policies are built, we have so many scalable solutions at our fingertips, as you can see with Drawdown.
My advice is to go through it all, find a sector you're passionate about, and do what you can to help. There's even a [climate job board](https://climatebase.org/) if you were interested in going deeper.
De-growth is one feasible model, but we're currently a highly inefficient civilization, and some of the things that can close that loop are easier than one might think ... Me, I'm pretty confident that I'll be driving a Delorean powered by trash at some point in the future ;)
For sure, climate change is bad, but we have more than enough time, don’t worry. We have stopgap measures to delay increases in heat, such as nuking an uninhabited area once we’re at 2 degrees higher sometime later in the second half of this century (Australian Outback has been suggested for this method).
It won’t start getting to apocalyptic/horrible levels until the 2400s (again, ignoring methods to delay it by the scientific community). And if things kept moving at the pace they are now, the 2400s is when we’d be getting to apocalyptic levels. But I’m certain AGI is getting here this century.
Climate change will however start a migration crisis since up to 500 million could be displaced, and this could spark a bunch of other issues this century. But it’s not going to be Armageddon type stuff, that is hyperbole. That’ll be the case 7-8 generations down the line.
I'd agree that we're probably going to end up having to turn to solar radiation management like you described, but that's a choice where we don't know what the wider effects will be on extreme weather etc. To be honest, I think we should be doing it now. But I have to disagree with your conclusion- the IPCC report is very clear that it's going to get to horrible levels this century if we don't get our shit together sharpish- it's not the heat alone, it's the wider impacts on ocean acidification, loss of the albido effect, methane release, extreme weather destroying crops etc. The efforts needed for staying below 2C this century just seem like... More than we have in us.
I honestly think that we keep going the way we are... until we don't. There's going to be a wall when it comes to carbon emissions. Astronomical gas prices and cheap renewables. Fusion will have numerous breakthroughs and the first plants come online. AGI. Solar. Tidal. Batteries. Politics. Everything. There will be a 5 year window in the early 2030's that everything changes.
I agree with you, but if we want that then countries need to stop using coal like….right friggen now.
It’s also not just the first world either, many third world nations are beginning to industrialize, so there has to be some kind of worldwide effort to stop pollution (by force if necessary). So even if we stop all of our pollution, there’s still China (largest polluter who doesn’t care) and the third world. So this could become a political issue even when we go 100% renewable. There has to be politically enforced policy to abandon fossil fuels.
Issue is, does our species have the backbone for that. If AGI doesn’t get here soon enough, then this will become a necessary measure moving forward.
Letting them use coal en-masse kills the rest of us and causes another mass extinction event, I know this is reddit and it's libertarian on everything, but countries refusing to abandon coal must be pressured into not using it. In a perfect world, you'd be right. But not everybody agrees, and this is about the future of the one planet we have to live on, and letting them continue to produce massive amounts of greenhouse gases dooms us all, can't think of anything more \*dystopic\* than that.
Developed nations (especially superpowers such as the US/China) can first fund and invest into infrastructure alongside asking said nations that refuse to abandon coal, but the thing is, coal alternatives are more expensive, they're better for us but they do cost much more. Countries that even have a lot of money still refuse to abandon coal nowadays, so it's almost a certainty that some nations will refuse to embrace energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gases. Here's the thing, not everyone is going to work together on this, so developed nations have to take a firm stance on a worldwide effort to abandon Coal and Oil.
Like, I get it, I'm with you in principal, and on most other issues I'm very libertarian, I value everyone's freedom and individuality. But when it comes to the survival of our planet's ecosystem, I am authoritarian pilled on this one issue, sorry, but if something violates the rest of our safety, we have to prevent it (albeit through as most nonviolent process as possible). It's almost an inevitability that some countries or corporations are going to refuse, and no, we don't have to take them over, kill them, invade or bomb them or whatever is going through your mind, but we do have to push and pressure them into using the alternatives instead of greenhouse gas emissions because that's going to hurt the rest of us.
Not everyone will work with you just because you ask them to do something, so currently developed nations need to make a worldwide effort to get off emissions, and needs to set up a system that disincentives the use of them.
If your stance is not working with and helping the developed nations, but working against the rightful desire of developing nations to increase the quality of life of their citizens, well, those plans were born to be rejected. And if "the survival of the species" demand the domination of whole continents instead of ration your own resources and decrease your quality of life yourself (you as societies, not as a particular person), then, yeah, that's a quote hard colonialist stance. You can rationalise it as you want, but it is that nevertheless.
I mean, this is a similar issue with anti-vaxxers. They harbour a virus that has the potential to kill millions (and already has, the US death toll from COVID is higher than the Civil War) so banning their access to public gatherings, boarding airlines or crossing borders where they can propagate it is a requirement if we want to stop the level of devastation the pandemic causes. This is a perfect example of people not willing to listen even though the science, help and medical support is there for them.
That help and support should be there for everyone through this incentive, but those who willingly deny that support do it at the cost of others, and those that do *that* should face consequences.
The data is there and is quite clear about who have been the biggest historical contributors to climate change. Going after and crippling the developing world for an issue you caused is a colonialistic stance that I won't condone. Good for you if you will.
Okay, so currently developed nations produced emissions in the past, and that *was* and still *is* wrong, what’s your point? France, Canada and the rest of Europe have moved away from that. That doesn’t give people in the present or future the right to continue to do it. You’re giving off Professor Flowers vibes here when she debated Vaush when she used the same argument Nazis use for displacing white people in South Africa by labeling them “colonizers” for the colour of their skin. Just because someone else displaced an ethnic group doesn’t give another ethnic group the right to do the same form of ethnic cleansing because people hundreds of years ago did it.
Yeah, if people do something that kills everyone, especially themselves out of ignorance (remember anti vaxxers?) there must be disincentives and consequences for that.
What should be done is that the countries responsible of global warming should fund the environmentally responsible development of the third world even if that implies stagnation or degrowth of those nations. Everything else is similar to keeping the world hostage because of their own mistakes. Make the poor pay for what the rich does.
Killing everybody by global warming is not a 1-day consequence, is an historical process with historical causes. Unitedstatians or France burning low amounts of coal or gas today does not mean at all that they haven't been one of the biggest contributors of the current state and that should pay accordingly.
Don’t use force to prevent coal use, use money to purchase renewable power and the infrastructure, support staff, and training to run it. It’ll be cheaper in the long run.
That’s a great option, we just need to hope those in power would cooperate with us in running it for them. I think most governments will be willing to cooperate if they don’t have to foot the bill themselves.
Corporations might be the largest hurdle here, as they always put profits over human life.
Yep, it's something I mentioned in the post, we essentially need to declare a worldwide emergency, subsidise other nations and come up with a global pact, under which anyone who doesn't sign gets embargoed. Life is going to need to change so much. I've decided not to have kids until there's an answer.
Yep, this needs to be a worldwide investment effort. The best alternatives we have to coal and fossil fuel right now are Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Solar and Wind, these 4 combined (with the latter three acting in a support role supplement to Nuclear power) should be enough to equal power output with coal. Again, we actually have to spend the money and build the infrastructure for these power methods for developing nations and China/India.
https://youtu.be/7TbDAFQkqj4
Go to 31:50 for the measure proposed, alternatively watch that interview for the full picture.
This scientist can explain it better than wikipedia can. Here is the mention over on wikipedia, it’s under climate engineering, but it doesn’t do it justice IMO.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
>It's not even 'just' the end of mass agriculture, which makes up the highest percentage of emissions, resulting in widespread starvation.
I think that people will probably prefer continuing to grow food over choosing to die. The idea that billions of people are willing to starve in order to slow climate change is never going to happen. Also, agriculture emissions mostly comes from the meat industry. Humans can switch to a plant-based diet and save a lot of resources, if it ever comes to that.
In the US, farmland that supports meat production comprises ten times the amount of land that is used to produce plant-based food products. Meat also uses 2x as much water and over 2x as much energy to produce as well. In general the world is also producing considerably more food than it actually uses. On one hand someone can view this as a wasteful practice, but on the other hand it shows that agriculture systems are currently running at several times the capacity that is actually necessary to support the existing population.
If there comes to be a significant pressure on the food supply, we will most likely see the majority of meat producers, especially beef, go out of business. The farms that grow animal feed will be converted into grain and vegetable farms, due to natural supply and demand in the market.
Reductions in living standards might suck, but I think that humanity is generally more adaptable than most people give it credit for. Even in the face of very large collapses I don't feel very strongly that humans can go extinct at this point in time. Climate change can ruin a lot of places but even with pretty extreme warming there will be at least some people surviving in the northern and southern regions of the globe that are mostly unpopulated today.
No reason to think about it. The only thing I can tell you is that extreme weather events will increase, the oceans get more acidic, the jet stream is changing and the golf stream is changing.
As long as we prevent uncontrolled runaway climate change by increasing temperature so far that the methane of the tundras gets released and other climate regulators turn towards further warming, we should be fine.
And honestly, thats out of your hand. If you arent able to change the burning of fossile fules for power production, the land usage for the meat industry or the regulation for the transport industry, all you can do is vote, go to protests and hope that the politicans of this legislative period, the next and the one after that all know that they have all our futures in their hand.
maybe those tictac-ship aliens that the US government’s UAP report talks about, will save us from ourselves? just so theyll have some friends to exploit?
i dunno man. its lookin pretty grim. im currently switching from beef to beyond-beef myself, and trying to eat more apple & carrot, but geez how are we gonna make it out of these next few decades alive??
im voting for the leftists in my town and crossing my fingers i guess
I'm not a climate change denier. But losing sleep over it, freaking out every day until it is solved wont help. Even if the world was going to end literally tomorrow by a alien invasion then you could at lest enjoy life until then.
I like to think of our growth has a person running full speed in a endless corridor filled with holes, we have jumped over many of them, but that one..
it's not about trying to jump over it anymore, we are already falling. it's not about climbing back up, it was already too late for that years ago.
now it's about preparing for the impact, because based on how things are going now, we would be lucky if even a single one of our bones survived.
every action that could be taken must be taken, even if it's just throwing our pocket dust downward, hopping that it could create any amount of thrust.
I have longed abandon any delusion, we are simply to stubborn, to resistant to drastic changes, if we can't even accept gay people existing, how could we possibly survive the climate change ?
in all honestly, I think that we are about to reach the end game, we have survived far longer that any human civilisation before us, but this is our end.
earth of course will survive, and homo sapiens will probably survive to, but everything will have to be rebuilt, and my only hope now is that whatever civilisation rises next will be able to learn from us, and finalise our final quest and only hope to break the cycle, interstellar colonisation.
No, OP, we do not have enough time. I recommend anyone reading this look into and learn more about Deep Adaptation (DA): https://www.deepadaptation.info/about/what-is-deep-adaptation
DA focuses on helping ourselves find social/emotional/other support as we continue to move forward into more uncertain times. It’s not doomer-ism, but rather (hopefully) a meaningful counterpoint to feeling hopeless.
No, we are are advanced, violent apes and we’ve secured our own destruction. The singularity won’t be achieved before we nope ourselves out of existence.
I agree things must go but am super disappointed space exploration would have to be in the list. I think a lot of pockets in the world would gladly make changes. I also think there are too many people who feel it doesn't apply to them and that will offset the impact of the few community conscious pockets. My view on success is a little dismal at this point as many world targets and agreements have been unmet through history. So many people rely on cheap, trendy and often unnecessary products to market to gain their wealth or happiness, which we have been conditioned to believing are necessary. Thanks for the question that allowed me to vent my opinion/concerns. I will hold on to what hope I have as this plays out🤞
I think the vested interests may believe they can get away scot-free and delay allowing the necessary changes until it's too late. No climate agreements so far have made any difference, and we are already well behind for Paris. I just find it so hard to imagine that we'll genuinely get our shit together, and exponential technology might be the only realistic hope we have left.
The 2045 deadline is not certain, look at the 1st reply on the /r/worldnews thread you linked. This is not settled science by any means so it should not be a given or used as the basis for arguments. The problem is massive but probably not as bad as the worst scenarios, the Earth has gone through bigger changes in the past.
The earth has, but we haven't. But I agree about the science on that, it just seems like there's a threatening conglomerate of events on the horizon relating to the planet, we've drastically altered the biosphere, put extinction rates into overdrive and don't seem to be hitting the brakes yet.
Yes we have, the Toba eruption 75k years ago is probably the best example. Humans were obviously very primitive back then with an estimated 3-5C change in average global temperature. We can probably survive if we survived that. Assuming that we have no way out is defeatist and not helpful, and probably wrong.
Yeah, and we were basically chimpanzees back then without any real tools, writing, or even language perhaps. The change in our abilities is probably orders bigger than difference in environmental challenges between then and now, I think even if people die it will be very difficult for us to actually go extinct within the next few centuries and basically impossible by 2045. Pretty sure most scientists do not agree with you, if the 2045 deadline were actually real then it would be getting much bigger coverage.
Sure but we also didn't have societies. Societies would collapse in a Toba scenario. We didn't even have agriculture, which we know is going to fail due to climate change, we were pack-hunters- and yes we would be better at that today in theory, what with guns etc, but how do you picture the experience of us getting from here to there? And none of what you said makes the ocean less acidic or the coral less bleached or the fish and plankton less dead. I'm pretty confident that so long as we can breathe, small pockets of people will survive, like small pockets survived after Toba. I just don't find that particularly comforting.
Yeah, I think we will survive, I guess that is answering a different question than if you were asking if we reach the Singularity. I think as long as we survive, we eventually will probably reach the Singularity though, it will just take more time. There is a fundamental difference which is comforting between extinction and surviving, even if the death count is massive.
How do you know that Toba did not have ocean acidification? It probably did have those same issues too I think. The real challenge with regards to extinction that may be fundamentally insurmountable by physics is the end state of the universe, but I must confess to being "longtermist" and obviously that is way farther out than climate change.
I agree with what you're saying. It would be nice if our species lives on, but the deaths of 99% of people is just so incredibly sad, and who's to say we'd make it back to where we are today? It's a lot of potential to waste.
Ocean acidification is caused by it absorbing too much CO2 because of its saturation in the atmosphere, Toba didn't cause nearly as much of a CO2 increase as we are emitting even today: https://www.sunysuffolk.edu/explore-academics/faculty-and-staff/faculty-websites/scott-mandia/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_volcanoes.html
It would be a huge tragedy but reality does not care, and 1% would still be around 8M people so that would probably be recoverable in the long-term. It would be a much bigger margin compared to what the Toba eruption is estimated to have done.
It may have not been to the same level but chemistry is the same, it would still have caused acidification but only to whatever percentage triggered by the molecules from the eruption. We should definitely continue to watch carefully how the trend unfolds though and see how bad in the range things get. And more importantly, focus on finding real solutions as quickly as possible.
Edit: Actually was off by an order of magnitude, 1% would be ~80M which is obviously a lot better than 8M. Much wider margin than I thought earlier, would probably have pretty good odds.
I'm with you that it's almost certainly not going to happen. But no, climate change is not manageable with any kind of ease, and if you don't think it's a huge deal, including for the global West, you *really* haven't been keeping up.
I'm reasonably well informed, I just dont see the consequences as an existential threat to me and mine, just something you must adapt to. Obviously, if you're sitting somewhere in the Netherlands or a coastal town in Florida you will have a different outlook because it's definitely an existential threat to you. It means different things to different people based on your local conditions. Don't be poor and you will adapt just fine, check the long term projections for your region and plan accordingly.
This comment is a great example that not all people who speak articulately are actually intelligent. “Don’t be poor”, ok you can be rich but if you’re surrounded by starving and homeless people they can still kill you and take what you have.
Invest in a gated community located \~10 meters above current sea levels.
[Automated security services should become available by the end of the decade.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk)
I think you may only be looking at the direct impacts of extreme weather and flooding, when the results are much more serious than that, particularly including famine.
No, I'm only looking at impacts to the well being of me and mine.
[The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world](https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world)
3°C is equivalent to 37°F, which is 276K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Any suitably & technologically enabled collective can deal a ever changing world. If you're poor, you and your parents should have made better choices because it will be a very difficult road for you and there is no way to avoid it at this late stage.
[The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world](https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world)
3°C is equivalent to 37°F, which is 276K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Imagine if I had said most of the optimistic hopes for the singularity will probably not happen and it's unlikely to be driven by some independent artificial agent for the foreseeable future.
Oh no, the Gretas invaded this sub! Climate change won't end the civilization. Keep calm. It is just another ordeal as the ones of the past, including COVID and even climate change, because this is not the first in our recent history. Read a damn history book, ffs.
Yeah, climate change would be bad but we will prevail. No need to act like a doomer or something.
What are you talking about?
Edit: great, your false report managed to get the thread locked. I'm not remotely suicidal, and just because you don't like that this thread is potentially pessimistic about the future rather than extremely optimistic doesn't mean to get to be a piece of shit about it just because you're a climate change denier. I'm not even a zoomer, you ingrate.
What if this thread had been yet another one about the high potential for the singularity to go badly, since we haven't remotely solved the alignment problem yet progress in AI is rapidly speeding up? Not a rosy enough outlook for you, boomer? Gonna go make more false reports?
Absolutely pathetic. I hope you're banned from the sub.
Just reported your zoomer-doomer crap with tag "self-harm or suicide". Hang out there, bro. Depression is treatable.
Godspeed.
EDIT. Ah, so I'm climate change denier now, huh? And we all know that this goes hand in hand with sexism and racism. Great.
If we are to believe that singularity is near (which I don't - see, I'm even a singularity denier?) then this would solve our climate problems because of the rapid progress. If the singularity is further in the future, no worries because the climate change won't ruin the civilization, like in some YA novel.
I'm fed up with these alarmist climate change posts popping up all over the place. It is not possible anymore to follow a sub without somebody shoving this stuff in your face.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/climate-change-intervention-cost/2020/09/17/c6715db6-f784-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html
yes, easily, and it's not even close, by orders of magnitude, insert seemingly hyperbolic phrase that is actually perfectly relevant here.
That opinion piece, from a newspaper literally owned by Jeff Bezos, a top-tier polluter, both assumes carbon capture can be scaled up to immense levels, which the IPCC says it can't be, and talks about wasting time building the necessary infrastructure over 30 years we don't have to play with.
Not to mention the political will required. You'd need to bury/sequester the CO2 rather than reusing it in the ways we currently do (making fuels to burn and release the CO2, pumping it back into the ground to get more oil out, feedstock for animals which produce methane etc), in order for it to actually be carbon negative. There's no market in that. So you'd need pretty much full subsidization or a VERY high carbon tax. And even if people came up with a market for shoving CO2 someplace it can't hurt us (including something like the mineralisation mentioned in your link), that market wouldn't care if the carbon came from direct air capture, which actually reduces the amount of CO2 in the air, or just from carbon capture and sequestration which just captures CO2 from exhausts from fossil fuels, which just avoids adding more carbon. Given that technology is already mature, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than DAC.
Even the freaking Texas DAC mentioned in the article you posted is being built by a company who plan to finance it by *using the captured CO2 to pump oil out of the ground and then sell the oil*. ????
All the information available and you're basing your opinion on this shitshow of an article?
30 years we don't have? ipcc says it can't be? interesting that you don't even bother providing citations for your ridiculous claims.
and washington post is very left wing and climate sensitive, even the tone of the article gives that much away.
and no this article is not the first place I heard this particular line of argument. It's just the first credible source that provides citations that google turned up when I searched for this line of reasoning. Though honestly "you're just parroting some other source" is an extremely tired counter argument on reddit imo. Yea guess what our universe is kinda deterministic and everything in your brain came from somewhere else.
cya in 30 years assuming we aren't killed by terminators XD (and definitely NOT climate change) (well I guess u might be killed by like a climate change induced lightning strike or hurricane or hypothermia something, but very low probability)
30 years we don't have because in 2050 of business as usual, we will be on course for 2.5C and, as far as the IPCC are concerned, we'll be fucked. We need net zero by 2050 in order to have a hope of staying below 2C. You can literally read their leaked 2022 report, I'll look for the link, and maybe you should have a little Google around for what happens at 2C.
Your source is not remotely credible. I just disassembled it and you've come up with nothing in response. Way to go. It's also hilarious that you think the WP is genuinely left wing, it's left wing by American standards, which means corporatist democrat.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage/
dude you need to learn to read. primary sources and not r/collapse.
nowhere in there does it say we are all dead in 30 years, or that ccs can't be scaled up. Maybe you misquote them saying no single technology can be scaled up to completely handle all necessary co2 capture?
I'm sorry that you're not familiar with basic economics. You *definitely* haven't read any of the pdfs in the link you just posted, because you're saying the opposite of what it says in those and really shouldn't have been upvoted.
Page 11: "Low-cost capture possibilities... in combination with short (<50 km) transport distances and storage options that generate revenues (such as EOR) **~EOR is using it to get more gas out of the ground, to be sold to be burned~** can lead to the limited storage of CO2 (up to 360 MtCO2 yr-1) under circumstances of low or no incentives."
In 2019, we produced 36.44 **billion** metric tonnes of CO2. A megaton is a million metric tonnes. So at the most, assuming people are willing to pay for the oil it's used to pump out of the ground, (and burning that oil would release all that CO2 straight back into the atmosphere, dipshit), without incentivisation (carbon tax & subsidies), we could sequester less than 1% of what we produce each year via the methods for carbon capture which don't cost an arm and six legs.
Page 12, addressing your terrible opinion piece: "The extent to which mineral carbonation may be used can currently not be determined, since it depends on the unknown amount of silicate reserves that can be technically exploited and on environmental issues such as the volume of product disposal." **~so yeah, were not going to make it viable via this~**
Page 12: "In most scenarios for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 750 ppm CO2 and in a least-cost portfolio of mitigation options,
the economic potential of CCS would amount to 220–2,200 GtCO2 (60–600 GtC) cumulatively, which would mean that CCS contributes 15–55% to the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2100, averaged over a range of baseline scenarios". **~450ppm is 1.5°C warming, 750ppm is up to 7°C, you don't want to Google what happens then. And it would still only deal with 15-55% of the problem~**
Continuing: "For CCS to achieve such an economic potential, several hundreds to thousands of CO2 capture systems would need to be installed over the coming century, each capturing some 1–5 MtCO2 per year. The actual implementation of CCS, as for other mitigation options, is likely to be lower than the economic potential due to factors such as environmental
impacts, risks of leakage and the lack of a clear legal framework or public acceptance." **~translation: you need not only the political will to build them but to subsidize them~**
Carbon capture is not your fairy godmother swooping in to solve all your problems, bud.
"Page 12, addressing your terrible opinion piece: "The extent to which mineral carbonation may be used can currently not be determined, since it depends on the unknown amount of silicate reserves that can be technically exploited and on environmental issues such as the volume of product disposal." ~so yeah, were not going to make it viable via this~"
you would've been one of the ones saying we're going to hit peak oil 30 years ago with this argument. Look, pretty much all the carbon in the atmosphere was once in the ground. Trust me there is a shit ton of silicates in the ground. where do you think shale oil/gas is coming from lol, the size of those reserves pales in comparison to the broader rock formations they are stored in. it's not even a question of if they are there, all they are saying is some of them are more expensive to use than others.
"In most scenarios for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 750 ppm CO2 and in a least-cost portfolio of mitigation options, the economic potential of CCS would amount to 220–2,200 GtCO2 (60–600 GtC) cumulatively, which would mean that CCS contributes 15–55% to the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2100, averaged over a range of baseline scenarios"
ipcc assumes in their models that between 15 and 55% of carbon reduction will come from ccs. which is perfectly sensible since it's often cheaper to just tax or regulate very high carbon sources, like maybe for instance cruise liners using bunker oil or something. But that doesn't mean that ccs couldn't do 100%. The simple fact is, the fact we COULD afford to COMPLETELY STOP climate change using JUST carbon capture is kind of just an UPPER BOUND on the magnitude of the problem, a problem which we can easily OUTGROW, that's right OUTGROW, NOT DEGROW.
but just because we COULD completely stop climate change doesn't even mean it's rational to do so, since it's such a small problem it's not even worth raising fuel prices for poor indians just to make planet a bit cooler in the short term. instead let's all enjoy this warm winter
Okay so just ad hominem and a claim, that the IPCC has just said is unevidenced, about minerals. "A shit ton", that's great. You also don't seem to understand that unless you do 100% with carbon capture, which is so deeply madly truly not going to happen, you have to make up the rest of the percentages in other ways. AKA, degrowth. Next time read the report before you try to vaguely back yourself up with it.
Ahh, he was a botanist and philosopher who spoke a lot about psychedelics, Jung, Buddhism and history. He's incredibly quotable. He was good friends with Tim Leary. But the transcendental object at the end of time is a kind of compilation documentary thing with a lot of his talks in, it's available on YouTube from the artist that did the soundtrack. The actual object, that was his name for a singularity, he had a theory that time (or, as he also described it, the rate of the production of novelty) is speeding up, and rather than winding down from the big bang, that time is actually drawn to an attractant at the end of it. It wasn't a technological singularity per se, he had a lot of different ideas about it, the jist was that it would be a psychedelic-esque boundary-dissolving event which would resolve all questions about life and death. It was a very interesting idea, worth reading about.
Wow holy shit thank you for the detailed response my guy much appreciated. Thanks for your nice write up, super well researched. Will definitely look into that other stuff for sure thanks again
One of the things that makes certainty hard in any of this is we are not rationally capable of anticipating future events both good and bad. There could easily right now be elements that extend our timetable and elements that dramatically reduce it. I'd advise less towards seeking an "is it worth it" / "can we do it" type of mindset and more towards a "how can we continually improve the situation" way of going about it.
I get what you mean. We struggle to understand exponentials, and that climate change is one of them. We should do whatever we can, wherever we can.
Yeah and I apologize if it may seem dark, that's not my intention, but if we cant save things, then we don't have to worry about it. We will be gone and that will be that. But, if we can do something, and we can, we should as people upon this planet take efforts to save ourselves and understand and improve, more.
What is this transcendental object that Terrence McKenna was talking about? Is there a book I can read to learn more about this?
Ahh- it's a documentary, first result in YouTube. Excellent soundtrack. But he hypothesised that time is moving towards a singularity which he called that, through exponential growth of technology and exponential increase in the complexity of societies, communication etc. The idea of the technology singularity wasn't really a thing when he died, which is a real shame, he'd have so much to say today.
Just to clarify, Vernor Vinge came up with the singularity concept in the 80s and it was popularized in the 90s. McKenna called it the omega point but you’re right, he essentially saw it as an upcoming transcension to god hood through both our conscious development and scientific knowledge. It a shame McKenna died, I would have loved him to see the singularity.
Me too, it's really sad, he had a solid 30 years in him yet. He honestly seemed to buy that it would come in 2012, but tbh his timewave theory is very flawed. But damn, the guy was talking his mouth off about a rapidly approaching singularity way before it was mainstream, he sure had the mushroom vision. He's top of my list for ressurection and/or an afterlife dinner party.
It will get worse before it gets better. We will probably resort to genetically engineering marine life to tolerate higher temperatures.
The book Ministry for the Future. It’s the only hope I’ve felt since I watched The Age Of Stupid. We’re not going to do anything. The rich will mostly survive like they always do.
I’m always surprised when climate engineering doesn’t feature in these discussions. The garden hose method is cheap and will reduce temperatures. Therefore it will be deployed if things start to look bad. It may well cause shifting rain and weather patterns, which will cause climate migrations. But if we don’t totally freak out and nuke each other, we have time.
what's the garden hose method? is that using a balloon and hose to put droplets in the atmosphere? I've heard of using boats to create clouds over the ocean to reflect sunlight, but not the garden hose method.
The fantasies some of the deniers in this thread are spouting are just embarrassing and evidence that we will convince ourselves of anything to cling to hope. The same people claiming the climate crisis isn’t that serious are probably the same ones that think an ice free Arctic will be great for international trade. Absolutely lunatic.
Yeah I kind of don't know why I'm bothering with that one guy. No critical thinking, no engagement with the information available, just repeating whatever appeals to them.
The two matters are on very different time scales. The Singularity, when it happens, will happen fairly abruptly. Climate change happens at comparatively glacial speed, much like our lives. When and if the Singularity happens the game board is tipped over. The rules are all changed. If it serves the source of the Singularity, climate change will be fixed. It will do it in is own time as it is very doable currently.
I'd highly recommend that you look into [drawdown](https://drawdown.org/solutions) if you haven't yet – they do a really nice job of distilling the reductions and sequestration necessary to get to net zero by mid-century, include costs, savings, and potential profits. One of the things you'll see with it, is that there's no silver bullet approach. DAC is cool, but that's far from the only thing, and there are lots of other solutions we can do now that will have a huge impact. And its important to point out that while engineered carbon capture solutions (like DAC) are theoretically the most efficient, as many have pointed out, the technology needs more innovation (much more efficient absorption, lower energy inputs, lower energy on the de-sorption side) and on top of that, needs more political will to have governments build the necessary infrastructure, because as you point out, the free market is not going to support what's necessary. But most models don't have scaled DAC online-ing meaningfully for another 15-20 years. While the tech matures and policies are built, we have so many scalable solutions at our fingertips, as you can see with Drawdown. My advice is to go through it all, find a sector you're passionate about, and do what you can to help. There's even a [climate job board](https://climatebase.org/) if you were interested in going deeper. De-growth is one feasible model, but we're currently a highly inefficient civilization, and some of the things that can close that loop are easier than one might think ... Me, I'm pretty confident that I'll be driving a Delorean powered by trash at some point in the future ;)
Thank you so much! I'm going to read into this :)
For sure, climate change is bad, but we have more than enough time, don’t worry. We have stopgap measures to delay increases in heat, such as nuking an uninhabited area once we’re at 2 degrees higher sometime later in the second half of this century (Australian Outback has been suggested for this method). It won’t start getting to apocalyptic/horrible levels until the 2400s (again, ignoring methods to delay it by the scientific community). And if things kept moving at the pace they are now, the 2400s is when we’d be getting to apocalyptic levels. But I’m certain AGI is getting here this century. Climate change will however start a migration crisis since up to 500 million could be displaced, and this could spark a bunch of other issues this century. But it’s not going to be Armageddon type stuff, that is hyperbole. That’ll be the case 7-8 generations down the line.
You got a source for that 2400 date?
Source on 2400's? I keep hearing its 30 years from now
I'd agree that we're probably going to end up having to turn to solar radiation management like you described, but that's a choice where we don't know what the wider effects will be on extreme weather etc. To be honest, I think we should be doing it now. But I have to disagree with your conclusion- the IPCC report is very clear that it's going to get to horrible levels this century if we don't get our shit together sharpish- it's not the heat alone, it's the wider impacts on ocean acidification, loss of the albido effect, methane release, extreme weather destroying crops etc. The efforts needed for staying below 2C this century just seem like... More than we have in us.
I honestly think that we keep going the way we are... until we don't. There's going to be a wall when it comes to carbon emissions. Astronomical gas prices and cheap renewables. Fusion will have numerous breakthroughs and the first plants come online. AGI. Solar. Tidal. Batteries. Politics. Everything. There will be a 5 year window in the early 2030's that everything changes.
I agree with you, but if we want that then countries need to stop using coal like….right friggen now. It’s also not just the first world either, many third world nations are beginning to industrialize, so there has to be some kind of worldwide effort to stop pollution (by force if necessary). So even if we stop all of our pollution, there’s still China (largest polluter who doesn’t care) and the third world. So this could become a political issue even when we go 100% renewable. There has to be politically enforced policy to abandon fossil fuels. Issue is, does our species have the backbone for that. If AGI doesn’t get here soon enough, then this will become a necessary measure moving forward.
Stopping the third world from developing "by force if necessary" is a dystopic colonialistic fantasy novel that no one has written yet.
Letting them use coal en-masse kills the rest of us and causes another mass extinction event, I know this is reddit and it's libertarian on everything, but countries refusing to abandon coal must be pressured into not using it. In a perfect world, you'd be right. But not everybody agrees, and this is about the future of the one planet we have to live on, and letting them continue to produce massive amounts of greenhouse gases dooms us all, can't think of anything more \*dystopic\* than that. Developed nations (especially superpowers such as the US/China) can first fund and invest into infrastructure alongside asking said nations that refuse to abandon coal, but the thing is, coal alternatives are more expensive, they're better for us but they do cost much more. Countries that even have a lot of money still refuse to abandon coal nowadays, so it's almost a certainty that some nations will refuse to embrace energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gases. Here's the thing, not everyone is going to work together on this, so developed nations have to take a firm stance on a worldwide effort to abandon Coal and Oil. Like, I get it, I'm with you in principal, and on most other issues I'm very libertarian, I value everyone's freedom and individuality. But when it comes to the survival of our planet's ecosystem, I am authoritarian pilled on this one issue, sorry, but if something violates the rest of our safety, we have to prevent it (albeit through as most nonviolent process as possible). It's almost an inevitability that some countries or corporations are going to refuse, and no, we don't have to take them over, kill them, invade or bomb them or whatever is going through your mind, but we do have to push and pressure them into using the alternatives instead of greenhouse gas emissions because that's going to hurt the rest of us. Not everyone will work with you just because you ask them to do something, so currently developed nations need to make a worldwide effort to get off emissions, and needs to set up a system that disincentives the use of them.
If your stance is not working with and helping the developed nations, but working against the rightful desire of developing nations to increase the quality of life of their citizens, well, those plans were born to be rejected. And if "the survival of the species" demand the domination of whole continents instead of ration your own resources and decrease your quality of life yourself (you as societies, not as a particular person), then, yeah, that's a quote hard colonialist stance. You can rationalise it as you want, but it is that nevertheless.
I mean, this is a similar issue with anti-vaxxers. They harbour a virus that has the potential to kill millions (and already has, the US death toll from COVID is higher than the Civil War) so banning their access to public gatherings, boarding airlines or crossing borders where they can propagate it is a requirement if we want to stop the level of devastation the pandemic causes. This is a perfect example of people not willing to listen even though the science, help and medical support is there for them. That help and support should be there for everyone through this incentive, but those who willingly deny that support do it at the cost of others, and those that do *that* should face consequences.
The data is there and is quite clear about who have been the biggest historical contributors to climate change. Going after and crippling the developing world for an issue you caused is a colonialistic stance that I won't condone. Good for you if you will.
Okay, so currently developed nations produced emissions in the past, and that *was* and still *is* wrong, what’s your point? France, Canada and the rest of Europe have moved away from that. That doesn’t give people in the present or future the right to continue to do it. You’re giving off Professor Flowers vibes here when she debated Vaush when she used the same argument Nazis use for displacing white people in South Africa by labeling them “colonizers” for the colour of their skin. Just because someone else displaced an ethnic group doesn’t give another ethnic group the right to do the same form of ethnic cleansing because people hundreds of years ago did it. Yeah, if people do something that kills everyone, especially themselves out of ignorance (remember anti vaxxers?) there must be disincentives and consequences for that.
What should be done is that the countries responsible of global warming should fund the environmentally responsible development of the third world even if that implies stagnation or degrowth of those nations. Everything else is similar to keeping the world hostage because of their own mistakes. Make the poor pay for what the rich does. Killing everybody by global warming is not a 1-day consequence, is an historical process with historical causes. Unitedstatians or France burning low amounts of coal or gas today does not mean at all that they haven't been one of the biggest contributors of the current state and that should pay accordingly.
Don’t use force to prevent coal use, use money to purchase renewable power and the infrastructure, support staff, and training to run it. It’ll be cheaper in the long run.
That’s a great option, we just need to hope those in power would cooperate with us in running it for them. I think most governments will be willing to cooperate if they don’t have to foot the bill themselves. Corporations might be the largest hurdle here, as they always put profits over human life.
Yep, it's something I mentioned in the post, we essentially need to declare a worldwide emergency, subsidise other nations and come up with a global pact, under which anyone who doesn't sign gets embargoed. Life is going to need to change so much. I've decided not to have kids until there's an answer.
Yep, this needs to be a worldwide investment effort. The best alternatives we have to coal and fossil fuel right now are Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Solar and Wind, these 4 combined (with the latter three acting in a support role supplement to Nuclear power) should be enough to equal power output with coal. Again, we actually have to spend the money and build the infrastructure for these power methods for developing nations and China/India.
Where can I read about this nuking to delay heat?
https://youtu.be/7TbDAFQkqj4 Go to 31:50 for the measure proposed, alternatively watch that interview for the full picture. This scientist can explain it better than wikipedia can. Here is the mention over on wikipedia, it’s under climate engineering, but it doesn’t do it justice IMO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
>It's not even 'just' the end of mass agriculture, which makes up the highest percentage of emissions, resulting in widespread starvation. I think that people will probably prefer continuing to grow food over choosing to die. The idea that billions of people are willing to starve in order to slow climate change is never going to happen. Also, agriculture emissions mostly comes from the meat industry. Humans can switch to a plant-based diet and save a lot of resources, if it ever comes to that. In the US, farmland that supports meat production comprises ten times the amount of land that is used to produce plant-based food products. Meat also uses 2x as much water and over 2x as much energy to produce as well. In general the world is also producing considerably more food than it actually uses. On one hand someone can view this as a wasteful practice, but on the other hand it shows that agriculture systems are currently running at several times the capacity that is actually necessary to support the existing population. If there comes to be a significant pressure on the food supply, we will most likely see the majority of meat producers, especially beef, go out of business. The farms that grow animal feed will be converted into grain and vegetable farms, due to natural supply and demand in the market. Reductions in living standards might suck, but I think that humanity is generally more adaptable than most people give it credit for. Even in the face of very large collapses I don't feel very strongly that humans can go extinct at this point in time. Climate change can ruin a lot of places but even with pretty extreme warming there will be at least some people surviving in the northern and southern regions of the globe that are mostly unpopulated today.
No reason to think about it. The only thing I can tell you is that extreme weather events will increase, the oceans get more acidic, the jet stream is changing and the golf stream is changing. As long as we prevent uncontrolled runaway climate change by increasing temperature so far that the methane of the tundras gets released and other climate regulators turn towards further warming, we should be fine. And honestly, thats out of your hand. If you arent able to change the burning of fossile fules for power production, the land usage for the meat industry or the regulation for the transport industry, all you can do is vote, go to protests and hope that the politicans of this legislative period, the next and the one after that all know that they have all our futures in their hand.
maybe those tictac-ship aliens that the US government’s UAP report talks about, will save us from ourselves? just so theyll have some friends to exploit? i dunno man. its lookin pretty grim. im currently switching from beef to beyond-beef myself, and trying to eat more apple & carrot, but geez how are we gonna make it out of these next few decades alive?? im voting for the leftists in my town and crossing my fingers i guess
I'm not a climate change denier. But losing sleep over it, freaking out every day until it is solved wont help. Even if the world was going to end literally tomorrow by a alien invasion then you could at lest enjoy life until then.
I agree, life needs to be lived in the moment however the ending is going to go.
I like to think of our growth has a person running full speed in a endless corridor filled with holes, we have jumped over many of them, but that one.. it's not about trying to jump over it anymore, we are already falling. it's not about climbing back up, it was already too late for that years ago. now it's about preparing for the impact, because based on how things are going now, we would be lucky if even a single one of our bones survived. every action that could be taken must be taken, even if it's just throwing our pocket dust downward, hopping that it could create any amount of thrust. I have longed abandon any delusion, we are simply to stubborn, to resistant to drastic changes, if we can't even accept gay people existing, how could we possibly survive the climate change ? in all honestly, I think that we are about to reach the end game, we have survived far longer that any human civilisation before us, but this is our end. earth of course will survive, and homo sapiens will probably survive to, but everything will have to be rebuilt, and my only hope now is that whatever civilisation rises next will be able to learn from us, and finalise our final quest and only hope to break the cycle, interstellar colonisation.
No, OP, we do not have enough time. I recommend anyone reading this look into and learn more about Deep Adaptation (DA): https://www.deepadaptation.info/about/what-is-deep-adaptation DA focuses on helping ourselves find social/emotional/other support as we continue to move forward into more uncertain times. It’s not doomer-ism, but rather (hopefully) a meaningful counterpoint to feeling hopeless.
No, we are are advanced, violent apes and we’ve secured our own destruction. The singularity won’t be achieved before we nope ourselves out of existence.
I agree things must go but am super disappointed space exploration would have to be in the list. I think a lot of pockets in the world would gladly make changes. I also think there are too many people who feel it doesn't apply to them and that will offset the impact of the few community conscious pockets. My view on success is a little dismal at this point as many world targets and agreements have been unmet through history. So many people rely on cheap, trendy and often unnecessary products to market to gain their wealth or happiness, which we have been conditioned to believing are necessary. Thanks for the question that allowed me to vent my opinion/concerns. I will hold on to what hope I have as this plays out🤞
Yes, because ultimately we don't need technology to save us. We just need to change our minds about some things.
I think the vested interests may believe they can get away scot-free and delay allowing the necessary changes until it's too late. No climate agreements so far have made any difference, and we are already well behind for Paris. I just find it so hard to imagine that we'll genuinely get our shit together, and exponential technology might be the only realistic hope we have left.
Thank you for this- I wish more people in the community paid more attention to climate change
I had similar questions myself. This is a very well put together post.
The 2045 deadline is not certain, look at the 1st reply on the /r/worldnews thread you linked. This is not settled science by any means so it should not be a given or used as the basis for arguments. The problem is massive but probably not as bad as the worst scenarios, the Earth has gone through bigger changes in the past.
The earth has, but we haven't. But I agree about the science on that, it just seems like there's a threatening conglomerate of events on the horizon relating to the planet, we've drastically altered the biosphere, put extinction rates into overdrive and don't seem to be hitting the brakes yet.
Yes we have, the Toba eruption 75k years ago is probably the best example. Humans were obviously very primitive back then with an estimated 3-5C change in average global temperature. We can probably survive if we survived that. Assuming that we have no way out is defeatist and not helpful, and probably wrong.
The toba eruption almost extincted us... And it didn't acidify the oceans.
Yeah, and we were basically chimpanzees back then without any real tools, writing, or even language perhaps. The change in our abilities is probably orders bigger than difference in environmental challenges between then and now, I think even if people die it will be very difficult for us to actually go extinct within the next few centuries and basically impossible by 2045. Pretty sure most scientists do not agree with you, if the 2045 deadline were actually real then it would be getting much bigger coverage.
Sure but we also didn't have societies. Societies would collapse in a Toba scenario. We didn't even have agriculture, which we know is going to fail due to climate change, we were pack-hunters- and yes we would be better at that today in theory, what with guns etc, but how do you picture the experience of us getting from here to there? And none of what you said makes the ocean less acidic or the coral less bleached or the fish and plankton less dead. I'm pretty confident that so long as we can breathe, small pockets of people will survive, like small pockets survived after Toba. I just don't find that particularly comforting.
Yeah, I think we will survive, I guess that is answering a different question than if you were asking if we reach the Singularity. I think as long as we survive, we eventually will probably reach the Singularity though, it will just take more time. There is a fundamental difference which is comforting between extinction and surviving, even if the death count is massive. How do you know that Toba did not have ocean acidification? It probably did have those same issues too I think. The real challenge with regards to extinction that may be fundamentally insurmountable by physics is the end state of the universe, but I must confess to being "longtermist" and obviously that is way farther out than climate change.
I agree with what you're saying. It would be nice if our species lives on, but the deaths of 99% of people is just so incredibly sad, and who's to say we'd make it back to where we are today? It's a lot of potential to waste. Ocean acidification is caused by it absorbing too much CO2 because of its saturation in the atmosphere, Toba didn't cause nearly as much of a CO2 increase as we are emitting even today: https://www.sunysuffolk.edu/explore-academics/faculty-and-staff/faculty-websites/scott-mandia/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_volcanoes.html
It would be a huge tragedy but reality does not care, and 1% would still be around 8M people so that would probably be recoverable in the long-term. It would be a much bigger margin compared to what the Toba eruption is estimated to have done. It may have not been to the same level but chemistry is the same, it would still have caused acidification but only to whatever percentage triggered by the molecules from the eruption. We should definitely continue to watch carefully how the trend unfolds though and see how bad in the range things get. And more importantly, focus on finding real solutions as quickly as possible. Edit: Actually was off by an order of magnitude, 1% would be ~80M which is obviously a lot better than 8M. Much wider margin than I thought earlier, would probably have pretty good odds.
[удалено]
I'm with you that it's almost certainly not going to happen. But no, climate change is not manageable with any kind of ease, and if you don't think it's a huge deal, including for the global West, you *really* haven't been keeping up.
I'm reasonably well informed, I just dont see the consequences as an existential threat to me and mine, just something you must adapt to. Obviously, if you're sitting somewhere in the Netherlands or a coastal town in Florida you will have a different outlook because it's definitely an existential threat to you. It means different things to different people based on your local conditions. Don't be poor and you will adapt just fine, check the long term projections for your region and plan accordingly.
This comment is a great example that not all people who speak articulately are actually intelligent. “Don’t be poor”, ok you can be rich but if you’re surrounded by starving and homeless people they can still kill you and take what you have.
Invest in a gated community located \~10 meters above current sea levels. [Automated security services should become available by the end of the decade.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk)
You’re living in a fantasy.
May you live in interesting times, good luck.
"Let them eat cake"
I think you may only be looking at the direct impacts of extreme weather and flooding, when the results are much more serious than that, particularly including famine.
No, I'm only looking at impacts to the well being of me and mine. [The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world](https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world)
3°C is equivalent to 37°F, which is 276K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Hmm, it says more bushfires and storms, failed crops and heatwaves, and that's if everyone kept to the Paris agreement, which they aren't.
Any suitably & technologically enabled collective can deal a ever changing world. If you're poor, you and your parents should have made better choices because it will be a very difficult road for you and there is no way to avoid it at this late stage.
So you're not actually basing your predictions on the report you cited then.
I'm not making predictions, just following them.
You just name dropped a report, implying that you go by what it says, but what is says is that you'll be very impacted. ?
you’re an idiot.
or just confident I can adapt to an ever changing world and continue to prosper.
if only I could downvote this twice
If only we could change reality using wishful thinking, but we cant.
Let's say that's true. What is that world like? Can you describe it?
[The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world](https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/reports-and-publications/risks-australia-three-degrees-c-warmer-world)
Thanks! That was quite the read. That may well be a probable future. But I'm still left curious as to how you personally plan to adapt and prosper.
3°C is equivalent to 37°F, which is 276K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Lol, wow, downvoted and called an idiot for saying climate change will not lead to the extinction of the human species.
Imagine if I had said most of the optimistic hopes for the singularity will probably not happen and it's unlikely to be driven by some independent artificial agent for the foreseeable future.
Oh no, the Gretas invaded this sub! Climate change won't end the civilization. Keep calm. It is just another ordeal as the ones of the past, including COVID and even climate change, because this is not the first in our recent history. Read a damn history book, ffs. Yeah, climate change would be bad but we will prevail. No need to act like a doomer or something.
What are you talking about? Edit: great, your false report managed to get the thread locked. I'm not remotely suicidal, and just because you don't like that this thread is potentially pessimistic about the future rather than extremely optimistic doesn't mean to get to be a piece of shit about it just because you're a climate change denier. I'm not even a zoomer, you ingrate. What if this thread had been yet another one about the high potential for the singularity to go badly, since we haven't remotely solved the alignment problem yet progress in AI is rapidly speeding up? Not a rosy enough outlook for you, boomer? Gonna go make more false reports? Absolutely pathetic. I hope you're banned from the sub.
Just reported your zoomer-doomer crap with tag "self-harm or suicide". Hang out there, bro. Depression is treatable. Godspeed. EDIT. Ah, so I'm climate change denier now, huh? And we all know that this goes hand in hand with sexism and racism. Great. If we are to believe that singularity is near (which I don't - see, I'm even a singularity denier?) then this would solve our climate problems because of the rapid progress. If the singularity is further in the future, no worries because the climate change won't ruin the civilization, like in some YA novel. I'm fed up with these alarmist climate change posts popping up all over the place. It is not possible anymore to follow a sub without somebody shoving this stuff in your face.
Nah, you're a dweeb and I was gonna give it a go even if it was 10 times worse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/climate-change-intervention-cost/2020/09/17/c6715db6-f784-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html yes, easily, and it's not even close, by orders of magnitude, insert seemingly hyperbolic phrase that is actually perfectly relevant here.
That opinion piece, from a newspaper literally owned by Jeff Bezos, a top-tier polluter, both assumes carbon capture can be scaled up to immense levels, which the IPCC says it can't be, and talks about wasting time building the necessary infrastructure over 30 years we don't have to play with. Not to mention the political will required. You'd need to bury/sequester the CO2 rather than reusing it in the ways we currently do (making fuels to burn and release the CO2, pumping it back into the ground to get more oil out, feedstock for animals which produce methane etc), in order for it to actually be carbon negative. There's no market in that. So you'd need pretty much full subsidization or a VERY high carbon tax. And even if people came up with a market for shoving CO2 someplace it can't hurt us (including something like the mineralisation mentioned in your link), that market wouldn't care if the carbon came from direct air capture, which actually reduces the amount of CO2 in the air, or just from carbon capture and sequestration which just captures CO2 from exhausts from fossil fuels, which just avoids adding more carbon. Given that technology is already mature, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than DAC. Even the freaking Texas DAC mentioned in the article you posted is being built by a company who plan to finance it by *using the captured CO2 to pump oil out of the ground and then sell the oil*. ???? All the information available and you're basing your opinion on this shitshow of an article?
30 years we don't have? ipcc says it can't be? interesting that you don't even bother providing citations for your ridiculous claims. and washington post is very left wing and climate sensitive, even the tone of the article gives that much away. and no this article is not the first place I heard this particular line of argument. It's just the first credible source that provides citations that google turned up when I searched for this line of reasoning. Though honestly "you're just parroting some other source" is an extremely tired counter argument on reddit imo. Yea guess what our universe is kinda deterministic and everything in your brain came from somewhere else. cya in 30 years assuming we aren't killed by terminators XD (and definitely NOT climate change) (well I guess u might be killed by like a climate change induced lightning strike or hurricane or hypothermia something, but very low probability)
30 years we don't have because in 2050 of business as usual, we will be on course for 2.5C and, as far as the IPCC are concerned, we'll be fucked. We need net zero by 2050 in order to have a hope of staying below 2C. You can literally read their leaked 2022 report, I'll look for the link, and maybe you should have a little Google around for what happens at 2C. Your source is not remotely credible. I just disassembled it and you've come up with nothing in response. Way to go. It's also hilarious that you think the WP is genuinely left wing, it's left wing by American standards, which means corporatist democrat.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage/ dude you need to learn to read. primary sources and not r/collapse. nowhere in there does it say we are all dead in 30 years, or that ccs can't be scaled up. Maybe you misquote them saying no single technology can be scaled up to completely handle all necessary co2 capture?
I'm sorry that you're not familiar with basic economics. You *definitely* haven't read any of the pdfs in the link you just posted, because you're saying the opposite of what it says in those and really shouldn't have been upvoted.
extremely interesting you aren't pointing out the page on the ipcc report i just linked for you where I am wrong and you are right.
Page 11: "Low-cost capture possibilities... in combination with short (<50 km) transport distances and storage options that generate revenues (such as EOR) **~EOR is using it to get more gas out of the ground, to be sold to be burned~** can lead to the limited storage of CO2 (up to 360 MtCO2 yr-1) under circumstances of low or no incentives." In 2019, we produced 36.44 **billion** metric tonnes of CO2. A megaton is a million metric tonnes. So at the most, assuming people are willing to pay for the oil it's used to pump out of the ground, (and burning that oil would release all that CO2 straight back into the atmosphere, dipshit), without incentivisation (carbon tax & subsidies), we could sequester less than 1% of what we produce each year via the methods for carbon capture which don't cost an arm and six legs. Page 12, addressing your terrible opinion piece: "The extent to which mineral carbonation may be used can currently not be determined, since it depends on the unknown amount of silicate reserves that can be technically exploited and on environmental issues such as the volume of product disposal." **~so yeah, were not going to make it viable via this~** Page 12: "In most scenarios for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 750 ppm CO2 and in a least-cost portfolio of mitigation options, the economic potential of CCS would amount to 220–2,200 GtCO2 (60–600 GtC) cumulatively, which would mean that CCS contributes 15–55% to the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2100, averaged over a range of baseline scenarios". **~450ppm is 1.5°C warming, 750ppm is up to 7°C, you don't want to Google what happens then. And it would still only deal with 15-55% of the problem~** Continuing: "For CCS to achieve such an economic potential, several hundreds to thousands of CO2 capture systems would need to be installed over the coming century, each capturing some 1–5 MtCO2 per year. The actual implementation of CCS, as for other mitigation options, is likely to be lower than the economic potential due to factors such as environmental impacts, risks of leakage and the lack of a clear legal framework or public acceptance." **~translation: you need not only the political will to build them but to subsidize them~** Carbon capture is not your fairy godmother swooping in to solve all your problems, bud.
"Page 12, addressing your terrible opinion piece: "The extent to which mineral carbonation may be used can currently not be determined, since it depends on the unknown amount of silicate reserves that can be technically exploited and on environmental issues such as the volume of product disposal." ~so yeah, were not going to make it viable via this~" you would've been one of the ones saying we're going to hit peak oil 30 years ago with this argument. Look, pretty much all the carbon in the atmosphere was once in the ground. Trust me there is a shit ton of silicates in the ground. where do you think shale oil/gas is coming from lol, the size of those reserves pales in comparison to the broader rock formations they are stored in. it's not even a question of if they are there, all they are saying is some of them are more expensive to use than others. "In most scenarios for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 750 ppm CO2 and in a least-cost portfolio of mitigation options, the economic potential of CCS would amount to 220–2,200 GtCO2 (60–600 GtC) cumulatively, which would mean that CCS contributes 15–55% to the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2100, averaged over a range of baseline scenarios" ipcc assumes in their models that between 15 and 55% of carbon reduction will come from ccs. which is perfectly sensible since it's often cheaper to just tax or regulate very high carbon sources, like maybe for instance cruise liners using bunker oil or something. But that doesn't mean that ccs couldn't do 100%. The simple fact is, the fact we COULD afford to COMPLETELY STOP climate change using JUST carbon capture is kind of just an UPPER BOUND on the magnitude of the problem, a problem which we can easily OUTGROW, that's right OUTGROW, NOT DEGROW. but just because we COULD completely stop climate change doesn't even mean it's rational to do so, since it's such a small problem it's not even worth raising fuel prices for poor indians just to make planet a bit cooler in the short term. instead let's all enjoy this warm winter
Okay so just ad hominem and a claim, that the IPCC has just said is unevidenced, about minerals. "A shit ton", that's great. You also don't seem to understand that unless you do 100% with carbon capture, which is so deeply madly truly not going to happen, you have to make up the rest of the percentages in other ways. AKA, degrowth. Next time read the report before you try to vaguely back yourself up with it.
I'm literally retrieving it at we speak 😂
What is this Terrence McKenna thing you briefly mentioned
Ahh, he was a botanist and philosopher who spoke a lot about psychedelics, Jung, Buddhism and history. He's incredibly quotable. He was good friends with Tim Leary. But the transcendental object at the end of time is a kind of compilation documentary thing with a lot of his talks in, it's available on YouTube from the artist that did the soundtrack. The actual object, that was his name for a singularity, he had a theory that time (or, as he also described it, the rate of the production of novelty) is speeding up, and rather than winding down from the big bang, that time is actually drawn to an attractant at the end of it. It wasn't a technological singularity per se, he had a lot of different ideas about it, the jist was that it would be a psychedelic-esque boundary-dissolving event which would resolve all questions about life and death. It was a very interesting idea, worth reading about.
Wow holy shit thank you for the detailed response my guy much appreciated. Thanks for your nice write up, super well researched. Will definitely look into that other stuff for sure thanks again
Here’s a talk by Terrence to get you started: https://youtube.com/watch?v=trCsPCm9Wt0
Hey no problem! I hope you enjoy it, the guy's hilarious and so engaging.