The Brutal Logic of Climate Change

Robear wrote:

Why would oil prices go back up after the election, though? Is our election a reason for oil prices to drop?

And I thought per capita usage in the US was actually pretty much flat for the last 30 years, up and down a bit, barring 2009? Look at energy consumption per person on this page (lower left chart).

Because that's what they have done every other election.

Did you look at the graph? Per capita consumption has been steadily declining ever since the 90s. It wasn't a massive amount until 2008, but even then, it is still a decline. And it will continue to decline because there simply isn't room for it anymore. The US might eke out a few more years of growth, but I think we have hit the top and it will all be on a decline from here. The world markets are due for a major correction and the meteoric rise of China is going to come to a screeching halt soon.

While the consequences of a major economic contraction are scary, it does mean that the forecast of 'Business-as-usual' with regards to climate change will not materialize. Nevertheless, current and near future emissions are simply unacceptable.

Did you look at the graph? Per capita consumption has been steadily declining ever since the 90s. It wasn't a massive amount until 2008, but even then, it is still a decline. And it will continue to decline because there simply isn't room for it anymore. The US might eke out a few more years of growth, but I think we have hit the top and it will all be on a decline from here. The world markets are due for a major correction and the meteoric rise of China is going to come to a screeching halt soon.

And it was steadily rising before then. And so forth. 30 years beats 20 years, and 40 beats 30, and so forth. On that scale, we've done little to reduce per capita consumption since 1970. I don't see a lot of reason for hope in that.

While the consequences of a major economic contraction are scary, it does mean that the forecast of 'Business-as-usual' with regards to climate change will not materialize.

Barring a massive change in government and industrial policies in the next few years, I think you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Robear wrote:

And it was steadily rising before then. And so forth. 30 years beats 20 years, and 40 beats 30, and so forth. On that scale, we've done little to reduce per capita consumption since 1970. I don't see a lot of reason for hope in that.

That doesn't make sense. The graph shows a steady decline beginning in the 90s. And a massive decline from a peak beginning in the 70s that was never reached again.

Robear wrote:

Barring a massive change in government and industrial policies in the next few years, I think you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

?

A massive economic contraction that grinds the world's gears to a halt will do just that, just like the one that occurred in the 70s. And this one will be even worse than that one. The Euro-zone is at the edge of the cliff and it is about to fall off, which is going to unravel the world economy. The bailouts in the US have only bandaged a festering wound that is going to require an amputation to stave off death.

It's worth pointing out that, in the day and a half we've had this thread going, the cost of fixing the problems has increased by approximately 2 billion dollars.

I think Dennis Leary succinctly explains why until climate change becomes an in-your-face can't deny it anymore problem, we're not going to do anything here in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ...

You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadilac El Dorado Convertable
Hot pink!
With whale skin hub caps
An all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights
YEAH!
And I'm gonna drive around in that baby
At 115 miles per hour
Getting one mile per gallon
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fashioned non-biodegradable Styrofoam containers
And when I'm done sucking down those grease-ball burgers
I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam containers right out the side
And there ain't a Goddamn thing anybody can do about it
You know why?
'Cause we got the bombs, that's why!
Two words: Nuclear f*ckin' Weapons
Okay!?
Seth wrote:
Robear wrote:
I realize I just outed myself as one of the bad guys from your point of view, but on the other hand this is also a great example of adaptability. Hop farms and vineyards will replace cherry trees and apple orchards as farmers adapt to the weather.

What will replace the vast swaths of wheat and corn lands in the central US?

An army of thirsty, desperate farmers looking to steal Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio's combined 6 quadrillion gallons of fresh water, I assume.

So in other words:

Agent 86 wrote:

IMAGE(http://abortionsforall.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/road1.jpg)

US East Coast a "hot spot" of sea level rise, and topics related to research in the field in North Carolina, courtesy of RealClimate.

The minor changes in our individual power consumption won't help much in the long run, not until we stop reproducing at the rate we do, if we cut our consumption/pollution by 25%, but the number of us grows to 9.2 billion by 2050 we'll have barely kept emissions at a stable level.

Keep emissions at a stable is much, much better than having them continue to increase.

Stengah wrote:

Keep emissions at a stable is much, much better than having them continue to increase.

Yup!

ZaneRockfist wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Keep emissions at a stable is much, much better than having them continue to increase.

Yup!

I think rosenhane misspoke and meant "contemporary" as opposed to "stable": in other words, even if we cut our individual consumption, we'll be right back where we are today by 2050 and they will continue to increase from there as long as the number of people increase.

And that's not even factoring in the people living in developing countries who would have to increase their individual consumption just to get anywhere close to the kind of lifestyle people in the developed nations have.

CheezePavilion wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Keep emissions at a stable is much, much better than having them continue to increase.

Yup!

I think rosenhane misspoke and meant "contemporary" as opposed to "stable": in other words, even if we cut our individual consumption, we'll be right back where we are today by 2050 and they will continue to increase from there as long as the number of people increase.

And that's not even factoring in the people living in developing countries who would have to increase their individual consumption just to get anywhere close to the kind of lifestyle people in the developed nations have.

Probably, but it's still much, much better than not doing anything because we can't fix things 100%.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Keep emissions at a stable is much, much better than having them continue to increase.

Yup!

I think rosenhane misspoke and meant "contemporary" as opposed to "stable": in other words, even if we cut our individual consumption, we'll be right back where we are today by 2050 and they will continue to increase from there as long as the number of people increase.

And that's not even factoring in the people living in developing countries who would have to increase their individual consumption just to get anywhere close to the kind of lifestyle people in the developed nations have.

Probably, but it's still much, much better than not doing anything because we can't fix things 100%.

It's not a matter of fixing things 100%, it's a matter of the fixes only being temporary. Of course it's better to do something, but talking about consumption without talking about population is only talking about half the problem.

Which as this point, I'm fine with. A temporary fix can give us time to come up with both a better fix for emissions, and to try to come up with a solution for the population problem as well. .

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Keep emissions at a stable is much, much better than having them continue to increase.

Yup!

I think rosenhane misspoke and meant "contemporary" as opposed to "stable": in other words, even if we cut our individual consumption, we'll be right back where we are today by 2050 and they will continue to increase from there as long as the number of people increase.

And that's not even factoring in the people living in developing countries who would have to increase their individual consumption just to get anywhere close to the kind of lifestyle people in the developed nations have.

Probably, but it's still much, much better than not doing anything because we can't fix things 100%.

It's not a matter of fixing things 100%, it's a matter of the fixes only being temporary. Of course it's better to do something, but talking about consumption without talking about population is only talking about half the problem.

I look at it as a stop-gap, something to buy a bit of breathing room until we work out a permanent solution. It's a temporary but necessary measure.

I don't actually think anyone is disagreeing anymore.

I'd argue we'd be better off going after the underlying problem: too many people. Even a 10% decline in the birthrate worldwide would only mean that 13.5 million babies wouldn't be born, heck cutting the birthrate in half would put the population at almost a stable level (which might even out eventual as all the people that were born under exponential growth eventually die off in 40+ years), not to mention that the average lifespan is increasing meaning that the average person emits more pollutants over the total of their lifetime than ever before. Slowing the population growth means that we won't see as many changes immediately, but over a century the reductions in population will be much more effective in reducing the not to mention the reduction in the destruction of rain forests and other bio-diverse zone to convert the land to food production for all of those extraneous people.

Also, babies born in industrialized countries have a disproportionate effect because they will consume a greater-than-average amount of resources.

clover wrote:

Also, babies born in industrialized countries have a disproportionate effect because they will consume a greater-than-average amount of resources.

Although a lot of that consumption is from overconsumption. My energy consumption is much lower than your typical American. And I could still stand to lower it a lot by moving into a proper city and sharing a place with more people. I dare say the average American could halve their consumption without really losing anything except some minor conveniences.

Installed some cellulose, essentially recycled newspapers, insulation today as well!

rosenhane wrote:

I'd argue we'd be better off going after the underlying problem: too many people. Even a 10% decline in the birthrate worldwide would only mean that 13.5 million babies wouldn't be born, heck cutting the birthrate in half would put the population at almost a stable level (which might even out eventual as all the people that were born under exponential growth eventually die off in 40+ years), not to mention that the average lifespan is increasing meaning that the average person emits more pollutants over the total of their lifetime than ever before. Slowing the population growth means that we won't see as many changes immediately, but over a century the reductions in population will be much more effective in reducing the not to mention the reduction in the destruction of rain forests and other bio-diverse zone to convert the land to food production for all of those extraneous people.

While I agree that it'd help out a lot, telling people to cut emissions is a bit more palatable than telling them to stop having kids. Education (particularly education for women) will help out a lot to reduce birth rates, especially in developing countries, so that's something that definitely needs to be pursued, but that doesn't mean that we should not do anything about emission levels. Ideally, we'd be doing things on both fronts (reducing emissions and trying to lower the birth rate).

Nicholaas wrote:

I look at it as a stop-gap, something to buy a bit of breathing room until we work out a permanent solution. It's a temporary but necessary measure.

The permanent solution is many small solutions. It is a common tactic to shoot down many moderate changes as not solving the entire problem. The solution is carbon filters for coal power plants, investing in wind, water, safe nuclear, solar. The solution is more organic "plastics" and fewer petroleum. The solution is high efficiency batteries, hydrogen fuel cells. The solution is more trees, less deforestation. If The US can hand plant millions of trees to repopulate the midwest, the Brazilians can too.

If you want to lose 50 pounds, you change your diet a bit, add in more exercise and little by little the pounds drop.

Anti science arguments love to derail the issue by stating a small solution is not a permanent fix. What they argue is that we should never get out of bed and go to work, because we cannot vault from bed to the office. When in reality they are saying the bed they have made is too comfy for them to want to leave even if it will be a deathbed. Precious little actually happens in an instant.

KingGorilla wrote:

Anti science arguments love to derail the issue by stating a small solution is not a permanent fix. What they argue is that we should never get out of bed and go to work, because we cannot vault from bed to the office.

That is a perfect summary. People really do neglect the simple and small solutions. Maybe it is because the simple and small solution has to begin with them and it seems inconvenient to them. The onus should be on everyone else.

Stengah wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

I'd argue we'd be better off going after the underlying problem: too many people. Even a 10% decline in the birthrate worldwide would only mean that 13.5 million babies wouldn't be born, heck cutting the birthrate in half would put the population at almost a stable level (which might even out eventual as all the people that were born under exponential growth eventually die off in 40+ years), not to mention that the average lifespan is increasing meaning that the average person emits more pollutants over the total of their lifetime than ever before. Slowing the population growth means that we won't see as many changes immediately, but over a century the reductions in population will be much more effective in reducing the not to mention the reduction in the destruction of rain forests and other bio-diverse zone to convert the land to food production for all of those extraneous people.

While I agree that it'd help out a lot, telling people to cut emissions is a bit more palatable than telling them to stop having kids. Education (particularly education for women) will help out a lot to reduce birth rates, especially in developing countries, so that's something that definitely needs to be pursued, but that doesn't mean that we should not do anything about emission levels. Ideally, we'd be doing things on both fronts (reducing emissions and trying to lower the birth rate).

But you don't need to tell them to stop having babies, you only need to educate them. Especially women need to be educated, the data indicates that they will lower the birth rate of their own volition, without any need to even coerce.

rosenhane wrote:

But you don't need to tell them to stop having babies, you only need to educate them. Especially women need to be educated, the data indicates that they will lower the birth rate of their own volition, without any need to even coerce.

This is long, but worth the time and well-organized around your point here.

I don't think there is a climate change that some people would like us to believe. As I think they are only out on our money (so called Cap&Trade instead of just capping).
The climate is changing and it's a natural phenomena. Our influence is not as huge as some will make it look like.
We should change our ways for the better though.

rosenhane wrote:

But you don't need to tell them to stop having babies, you only need to educate them. Especially women need to be educated, the data indicates that they will lower the birth rate of their own volition, without any need to even coerce.

I remember reading about a study of Indian women that corroborates exactly what you are saying. The more education they received, the less likely they had children. It was a direct correlation with every level of education offering a larger and larger reduction in childbearing.

rosenhane wrote:

But you don't need to tell them to stop having babies, you only need to educate them. Especially women need to be educated, the data indicates that they will lower the birth rate of their own volition, without any need to even coerce.

I remember reading about a study of Indian women that corroborates exactly what you are saying. The more education they received, the less likely they had children. It was a direct correlation with every level of education offering a larger and larger reduction in childbearing.

rosenhane wrote:

But you don't need to tell them to stop having babies, you only need to educate them. Especially women need to be educated, the data indicates that they will lower the birth rate of their own volition, without any need to even coerce.

I know, that's why I said "Education (particularly education for women) will help out a lot to reduce birth rates, especially in developing countries," but that's not going to get your 50% reduction to get things stable. I'm all for cutting the birth rate, but we still need to work on emissions as well.

KingGorilla:

Actually, I think the permanent solution is going to be adaptation. Our species did not evolve to cope with the ability to modify the planet acting as millions; but we presumably have the ability to adapt and change in the millions, to better fit a changing world. It just so happens that our own activity is the one that appears to be influencing the planet recently (though that's not necessarily a foregone conclusion). It stands to reason that what will happen is that climate will change, many species will become extinct, and we will adapt. Or not - then we become extinct and other species evolve to fill the niche.

I would not put it past possibility that we will evolve the ability to organize en masse and act en masse (China is already showing signs that this sort of high-level decisive decision-making can be possible), but I'm not overly optimistic about that.

Sparhawk wrote:

I don't think there is a climate change that some people would like us to believe. As I think they are only out on our money (so called Cap&Trade instead of just capping).
The climate is changing and it's a natural phenomena. Our influence is not as huge as some will make it look like.
We should change our ways for the better though.

Considering the age of the solar system, the complexity of the systems involved, and the relatively small slice of time we have good, detailed info for, this is entirely possible. I dunno about likely, but possible.

My issue with your argument is you're looking at cause and effect backwards. It's not the climatologists trying to sell cap and trade, they're saying "Hey, cut this sh*t.", and then you have people trying to sell cap and trade as a result of that. Really, there's no real easy profiteering to be had here. If there was, people would be ALL over it. (There's also a really, REALLY sharp upswing around the industrial revolution.) There's also the question of what the effect will be, overall. (Say if we were to drift back towards a glacial period, a bit of extra blanket on the earth is no bad thing...)

However, like you said, that's no reason to not want to build a better tomorrow. CO2 is one of the least harmful pollutants we produce. Even completely disregarding climate change out of hand, we have no shortage of reasons to shape up. Off the top of my head:

More efficient non-petroleum energy, especially of the distributed sort (Wind, solar) will reduce the political issues and instability around oil, as well as potentially lowering prices (Especially if we manage to crack economical fusion).

Hyrdocarbon based plastics have poor environmental effects. (See the great plastic whirl in the pacific.)

Smog, acid rain, and other nasty pollutants.