I think it's 100% because the changes are so slow(in human terms). Vast majority of people don't yet see anything that would make them go into this full-on panic mode, so....they don't. Yeah the permafrost is melting, but I have bills to pay this month. What am I going to do? Go and protest all day? What is my kid going to eat in the meantime?
And I think this slowness of reaction is also what will make any sort of solution extremely difficult to implement - people will complain that they are feeling the impact of any solution right now(like, if plastics were banned tomorrow), while the climate won't improve for a long time - even if we stopped our emissions entirely the climate would keep getting worse for decades until any meaningful improvement would be observed.
"...renewables (including biofuels, waste and hydro) are responsible for almost the same share of energy today (14 per cent) as supplied in 1971 "
We can shave of percentages by stopping eating meat and so on but fossil fuels are still the major culprit in carbon emissions.
From economical point of view it's catastrophe today (just stopping using fossil fuels cold turkey will destroy the economic structure of our civilization) versus catastrophe tomorrow.
The first official warning by an expert panel to the US President was 1965. We did pretty much nothing since then to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel. We could have for example switched all electricity generation to nuclear with 1965 technology and changed building standards to require proper insulation and electric or district heating. That would have bought a lot of time that we don't have now. We could also have instituted a carbon tax and slowly (over the course of the last fifty years or so!) pinned it to the cost of extracting carbon from the atmosphere.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We're here now, we can't change the past, and blaming previous generations is a waste of time when we need to act now. Most of us know what to do. We just need to start doing it.
And we won't, for the same reasons they didn't in the past: it is too inconvenient. If we are ever to solve problems like this we need to embed within our culture the desire to sacrifice convenience for a future we may never see, and that's more or less the antithesis of current cultural norms. We need to take responsibility for this ourselves on an individual level and stop just pointing fingers and making excuses why it can't be done.
What do we need to do? I don't see how we can reduce carbon emissions by 18% per year for the next ten years. Right now we don't even get the second derivative right, emission rates are still on the rise. It doesn't really look like our politicians worldwide will start an effort comparable to ramping up the WW2 war industry to decarbonize the economy in the next decade. On the contrary, conservative climate denialists are on the rise.
What we can do is to skip unnecessary travel, use public transport whenever we can, stop buying fairly useless consumer products for our own leisure, and the most important ones: realise that reducing our collective carbon footprint will result in considerable reductions of one's individual standard of living.
We, as individual consumers, need to reduce the carbon emissions ourselves as much as possible no matter what the politicians say. Deniers are going to be a problem until shit hits the fan for real, and waiting until everyone is convinced will simply be a waste of time.
So, in other words, focus less on what others do, more on what you do, and make sure to prepare as much as you can for whatever the future holds. Not saying everyone should become a prepper (although it's a fun hobby!), but the fact that people blindly believe that the future is a straight line is scarier, regardless of where they believe that line is pointing.
Individuals reducing their carbon footprint by reducing consumption is all good, but it is really a drop in the bucket in the big picture. I would be worried that focusing on that could be counter-productive with a higher chance of making people either feel that they have "done their part" (if they have personally done these minor reductions) or induce general apathy over the fact that the only way forward is to reduce your quality of living while knowing that it won't make any real difference anyway.
If we really want to make a change we have to focus on big picture solutions. Instead of being against, we need to focus on what we want to move towards.
The only way to reduce our dependency on carbon fuels within a realistic timeframe is an aggressive rollout of renevable energy like wind and solar, _and_ nuclear. If we were really serious about this, we would do massive investments in nuclear, building lots of new plants and also stepping up the research in technologies like molten salt and thorium based reactors.
If we should take to the street and demonstrate, it should be _for_ actual solutions like that, rather than _against_ minor things that don't make much of a difference anyways.
Definitely! I'm not against big picture solutions -- I just don't see then need to postpone action on an individual level until a big picture solution has been put in place.
The changes we need to do will require a large cultural change in order for people to accept them. We need to accept collective AND individual responsibility for something that affects the entire biosphere. Increasing taxes on fuel won't change the way people think, any more than getting rid of plastic straws will. After all, most large changes can be summarized as a long sequence of smaller events (not sure if that last part sounds right -- English isn't my first language).
That's like a landslide were each pebble of dirt doesn't consider itself responsible for what's happening, on a bigger scale, even tho all the pebbles keep doing the same thing leading to bigger scale consequences in the first place.
Many a mickle makes a muckle, this applies to pretty much everything.
If everybody keeps acting like their individual contributions are completely meaningless, then nobody will change anything about their own ways and thus large scale change will remain a pipe-dream.
The vast majority of carbon emissions is out of individual control.
The longer you keep parroting this corporate propaganda, the more fucked we are. This needs strong government intervention, now.
Preferably paid for with massive, backdated windfall taxes on every company and shareholder that ever materially benefited from environmentally destructive companies.
Obviously not going to happen, but let's not pretend me or you are responsible for the industrial levels of pollution, and the last few decades of climate change denier lobbying, when those companies full well knew the damage they were doing.
> but let's not pretend me or you are responsible for the industrial levels of pollution
Let's instead pretend our chosen lifestyle of abundance and wastefulness doesn't factor into any of this at all?
Who do you think these companies are selling their products to? Thus financing their operations in the first place? Externalizing the blame for this solely on the industry, like consumers have zero responsibility or impact, might be convenient but imho it only serves to shift the blame from one party to the other and vice versa, so that ultimately nobody feels responsible and thus nobody starts acting.
To tackle this will require efforts on both ends. Because the industry will simply react by "There's demand for it, so we do it", while consumers go "The industry is doing it, somebody needs to force them to change, but don't you dare to inconvenience ME!".
Literally, nothing stops us from doing both: Being responsible consumers and properly regulating the industry.
Suppose everybody did this and reduced their carbon footprint by 30-50%. They still have to eat and not freeze to death in winter, but we need to become completely carbon neutral. Individual action is definitely necessary, and can buy us valuable time, but there is only so much individuals can do.
> From economical point of view it's catastrophe today (just stopping using fossil fuels cold turkey will destroy the economic structure of our civilization) versus catastrophe tomorrow.
I think this is a false dichotomy, and so do many economists [1]. We can start phasing out out the non-essential use of fossils and come up with replacements for the remainign parts in the coming decades.
Painting it as this kind of desperate dichotomy is generally playing into the hands those who don't want us to address climate change.
Remember that the changes aren't only chilling on the economy - the energy overhaul is an enormous global public works project.
We are using energy and energy-intensive products in really wasteful ways because of their low cost in our everyday lives (consider oversized cars and low occupancy, available savings from turning heating & cooling to lower levels, going veggie in food, cutting air travel, not to mention all the wasted energy in commercial/industrial side due to low energy costs).
I think the biggest hurdle is that the incumbent investments in hydrocarbons have quite a lot of future profits to tied up to continued usage of said resources. The negative externalities of hydrocarbon eceonomy should be tied more forcefully directly to their usage. But even that would not discourage investors from doing all they can to keep up the demand for oil.
That's the endgame I expect: climate refugees leading to (possibly nuclear) war. With a much smaller human population (and perhaps a bit of nuclear winter), atmospheric CO2 will return to pre-industrial levels, and things will return to normal in a couple millennia. The remaining humans will migrate down from Alaska and Siberia, and build new cities on top of the ruins.
Climate change is a "solved" problem, but the solution isn't something I would want to live through.
I can see advanced civilization taking a (possibly long) pause. But there will be so much space to expand into for the survivors, and caches of technology to discover. Someone will eventually discover and re-tool.
Switch to electric transportation as quickly as possible.
Change your mind about needing a personal automobile, and share it with as many people as possible. Use public transportation if you have it, and insist in your community investing in public transportation systems if you don't.
It'll be up to the good citizens of Houston to work out how to solve this problem. I imagine electric transportation would still work there. But, I do also think that a lot of American cities are going to have to work out how they're going to stay inhabitable without requiring a massive refactoring of their landscapes.
Because panic does not bring about solutions. Nobody is disagreeing that there is an issue. Nobody. I believe there are a number of people pointing out the problem, over and over, civil disobedience etc, but there is nobody pointing out a viable solution. I believe that is why nobody responds to civil disobedience. I think if people came up with a viable solution we would be all over it. Technological change is probably the answer (as it was to the ozone hole). I think electric vehicles eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles as sure as flat screen TV's eliminated CRT's is an answer. I think a lack of acceptance of nuclear power is an issue, and nuclear power is an efficient viable solution. Solutions have to be socially acceptable and able to deliver mass change - a solution of turning off coal plants is not an answer as it would destroy civilisation, economies and populations in the same way that climate change would - no equally efficient and inexpensive replacement. Activist groups have not realised that Civil disobedience is not an answer, it is just pushing the question over and over. Solutions are what is required!!
SO WHAT? The USA doesn't rule the world. What is your solution? Convincing everyone that there is a problem is not a solution. We just end up with everyone convinced there is a problem. Wasted energy. What is the solution?
What an unnecessarily hostile response. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - one of the issues is that you have people who not only deny it's happening, but are trying to convince people it's not happening. Regardless of your assertion, the evidence is there that the issue is extremely polarised.
I was pointing out that it's not as simple as wanting to believe that everyone is on the same page, here. It's not easy to even get people to recognise the issue, let alone starting from a point where we're all pulling in the same direction.
The solution is a carbon tax that is tied to the cost of extracting carbon from the atmosphere and storing it for geological time periods. The sooner we start, the gentler we can ramp it up.
The more people know about it, the more they are. Talk to academic ecologists. It's also very gradually dawning on the general population, but slow-motion catastrophes are hard to address with urgency given the many demands on peoples' attention. Add to the mix a firehose of lies and propaganda from the Murdoch media which has given many a false impression that climate collapse is scientifically controversial.
There are signs of panic amongst the very young. A widespread rebellion is the only thing that could move fast enough to save us at this point, and I can't see where that could come from other than our youth. The chances aren't good, but if there are signs of hope, that would be where to look.
I think humanity has a built in "we'll figure it out" belief. I've seen people even here go "well, we'll just get used to the new normal". I think that, as things aren't immediately catastrophic they aren't that bad, and we'll figure it out at the 11th hour, like the race of superheroes that we are. Because nothing has ended the world so far, this one won't either. We'll just figure it out.
It is an actionable solution. Riots got the poll tax repealed. Civil disobedience achieved independence in India, and civil rights in the US. A march from A to B highlights something - and is always easy to ignore. They always are.
The aim of XR is not to tell about climate change. Everyone should know about that. The science was settled decades ago. Just about everyone knows what needs to be done, too. Yet governments do nothing but bleat on about an opportunity from shale oil, or some new coal contract. Then bring a little green washing with far future targets, long after they have retired, or outlawing plastic bags.
Civil disobedience and intentional law breaking does not aim to tell anyone the problem, it's bloody obvious. It aims to become a permanent and ongoing drain upon resources. Like a tax or a labour strike. To cause actual costs to the system and state, their people and potentially companies. Costs of policing, of removing chained up protesters, of flooding the courts with formerly law-abiding citizens.
Because of a few great wins in history, we have a rather romantic and rosie notion of civil disobedience, protesting, marching, and general civil disruption. And so they've become well-worn tools of the modern activist. Its worth questioning whether these are the best tools to use in so many circumstances.
Its a very real possibility that the gamble doesn't pay off. It might even drive polarization and skepticism among the very people you need to reach the most. It may just create civil unrest and reduce our resources, leaving us less able to fight climate change. Or a few smart people who might otherwise be able to contribute to a solution, end up spending their valuable time in jail, instead.
Survivor bias in civil disobedience makes some people think that “on average” it produces positive results, especially when the cause is “just” (which every violent extremist does, of course). Anyone even casually familiar with history would blush at such arrogance.
> rosie notion of civil disobedience, protesting, marching, and general civil disruption
Personally I see protesting and marching as a nice Saturday afternoon out that achieves precisely nothing. Just look what the massive march and demo against the Iraq war achieved - nowt. It's important not to conflate them with civil disobedience which has very different aims and tactics.
It's being an ongoing thorn in the side of the state that has historically made a difference. I certainly don't see that as a well-worn tool of the modern activist - it's a forgotten tactic, replaced by one-off marches or demos, and the online petition. Which achieve almost nothing.
If a few smart people feel it's gone too long being ignored that they are now willing to risk prison, well good on them. If they're smart enough and presentable enough to not be easily dismissed as eco-nuts by the right wing media, they can often achieve positive press for their aims. It's hard to dismiss a retiree with 40 years in industry, doctor, or IT consultant quite so easily.
It remains to be seen if the gamble and assessment of public opinion is correct. For both XR and the school strikes, the public reaction has appeared hugely positive so far - far more so than I would have expected. Which is a problem for a government that would prefer not to act.
Of course it was a good thing, it was a flat rate per head, regardless of income or wealth. Making it one of the most regressive taxes we've had. Trivial for the income of many HN readers, crippling for a typical nurse, teacher or shop worker.
You're absolutely right, I was just pointing out in your post you believe that governance via violent extremists is good, but governance via land-owners (wealth) is bad. How do you reconcile that: is there any underlying principle behind your belief? Should we enshrine violent tactics into law as a Good Thing or should we, as a society, oppose you and your kind with all our might?
I very clearly don't advocate violent resistance, but civil disobedience. An entirely non-violent resistance, such as seen in the school strikes and XR protests, or the well known historic examples.
The anti-poll tax riots were as counter productive as they were productive due to their violence. A reasonable police response is necessarily very different to a reaction to polite society women chaining themselves to railings seeking suffrage, or the entirely non violent blocking of bridges of XR. Yet they are an example of law breaking achieving change. So no, using it as a for-instance of change is no indicator whatsoever I believe in violent extremism. I don't.
Violent tactics can entirely reasonably provoke a draconian response. A draconian or violent response to entirely peaceful protest, such as XR or civil rights protests is counter productive for government, and may actually incite riot.
I'm reasonably comfortable with XR's aims, which are, off the top of my head: Tell the truth about the scale of the problem and time available in all parts of the state, and zero carbon by 2025.
That would require a rethink of almost everything to be sustainable, and a short enough timescale that governments can't simply kick it into the long grass of "not during our term".
I would question your assertion that we all know there is a problem. I imagine the vast majority of people don't. They may be vaguely aware of climate change, but most people just think surely it can't be serious and it'll be ok, we'll work it out when it does become a problem.
Just the other day the UK courts have dismissed any attempt at blocking an extra runway at Heathrow airport. We need this runway to increase the number of flights out of the UK. Good for the economy etc.. If that isn't a symptom of the vast majority of people being in complete denial I don't know what is.
Actionable solution no. 1.. don't build more runways.
The law is the law. The courts can only uphold and interpret what's written.
So before we can get to no more runways we need governments that react appropriately to the problem, and build climate change and environmental consequences into laws. Strong laws that restrict and tax carbon, building regulations, transport, well everything.
> We all know there is a problem. Absolutely no-one denies it.
You keep angrily repeating this, and it's very obviously wrong. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep doing this, even if they're natural allies in whatever cause you're part of.
Spend double digit percentages of our annual budget on decarbonizing the economy.
Have for example a look at how much the Iraq war cost over seven years and imagine how many batteries and solar panels could have been build with that money and how many homes could have gotten improved insulation. And that was really just a minor blip compared to the efforts that went into WW2.
Countries like the Maledives invest in land; that's a sensible thing to do that will save existences. What's not sensible to do is restrict fossil fuels in Europe wile China is still ramping up; it's symbolism that does not help a single person.
Every ton of carbon counts. Every Euro invested in carbon neutral alternatives makes it cheaper for poorer countries to switch. A EU wide carbon tax that is also applied to imports would perhaps also sway China into putting more effort into reducing their emissions.
There is a benefit in starting to restrict fossil fuels early. It has to be done at some point anyway because the backing resource is limited and contributes to the human-hostile terraforming of our planet. Continuing with burning coal and oil is simply a losing proposition.
Also, while defossilizing the industry base, it makes sense to enhance, increase and automate local factories to make it viable to produce things locally and not half a world away. Add a functional and effective system for recycling materials to use for new production, etc. and the long term trend is clear: China's role as the production hub of the world will diminish dramatically. From this perspective I do not understand why China does not seem to be racing like mad to restrict fossil fuels.
