Climate change is OK.
You think we should act to reverse climate change? You think we have a chance at it?
I think we are hypocrites about our ability to undo our vices.
But most importantly, we don't know about our own hypocrisy, because it hides behind the curtain of consciousness.
I invite you to have a short mental game with me. 80% of this game will play out in the first part, where we lay out the facts.
2 groups of phenomena will be considered:
Thermodynamics and Economics
a) Thermodynamics
1. The Earth is warming.
2. Sea levels are rising and the rate of rise is increasing.
3. CO₂ concentration is up 60% compared to the pre-industrial era.
4. CO₂ leads to greenhouse warming.
5. CO₂ output has been increasing.
6. The oceans act as a thermal buffer
7. Positive feedback loop phenomena could lead to further warming (albedo, permafrost methane, forest fires)
b) Economics
8. Most humans will do whatever it takes to put bread on the table.
Some humans are short-sighted.
Most humans are driven by profit motives.
Humans prefer jobs with the highest income/effort ratios.
9. Corporations are eager to conserve their monopoly.
10. Current infrastructure is set up to run on fossil fuels.
11. We haven't burned most of Earth's fossil fuel reserves.
12. Currently in most places it is more profitable to use fossil fuels than renewables.
13. Current efforts directed at reducing global warming merely target a lowered increase in CO₂ emissions. (ie. we don't even pretend to want to stop the increased output)
II. Part
CONNECT THE DOTS!
If, by agreeing to the the above points, you apply reason, you will end up with a conclusion like this:
Short of a major nuclear war/epidemic, humanity is going to go on using fossil fuels until they are close to depleted.
Large scale transition to renewables and electrification of the infrastructure will merely help to postpone an inevitable CO₂ fate with most of all fossil fuels ending up back in the atmosphere.
This will lead to long-term warming of the climate.
c) Exceptions
1. More than half of the industrialized world is wiped out in one catastrophic event in the near future, which leads to rebooting humanity in a world with no special interest groups and no status quo technologies. Given that renewable energy sources and electrified transport systems can re-emerge from the ruins of our civilization and establish dominance over fossil ones, we can hope that CO₂ concentration can stall.
This is, however, likely to be temporary as some isolated groups may independently develop their new, fossil-based economies. This is exacerbated by the fact that probably not all humanity will be equally hit by such a catastrophe, with some groups' current fossil tech remaining fairly operational after the apocalypse.
Moreover, some fossil element of any future economy is likely to be present. Even if fossil is a minor constituant of a community's energy mix, if used for long enough periods, it will eventually end up spuring the same CO₂ concentration as current trends would in a much shorter time period.
I think we are hypocrites about our ability to undo our vices.
But most importantly, we don't know about our own hypocrisy, because it hides behind the curtain of consciousness.
I invite you to have a short mental game with me. 80% of this game will play out in the first part, where we lay out the facts.
2 groups of phenomena will be considered:
Thermodynamics and Economics
a) Thermodynamics
1. The Earth is warming.
2. Sea levels are rising and the rate of rise is increasing.
3. CO₂ concentration is up 60% compared to the pre-industrial era.
4. CO₂ leads to greenhouse warming.
5. CO₂ output has been increasing.
6. The oceans act as a thermal buffer
7. Positive feedback loop phenomena could lead to further warming (albedo, permafrost methane, forest fires)
b) Economics
8. Most humans will do whatever it takes to put bread on the table.
Some humans are short-sighted.
Most humans are driven by profit motives.
Humans prefer jobs with the highest income/effort ratios.
9. Corporations are eager to conserve their monopoly.
10. Current infrastructure is set up to run on fossil fuels.
11. We haven't burned most of Earth's fossil fuel reserves.
12. Currently in most places it is more profitable to use fossil fuels than renewables.
13. Current efforts directed at reducing global warming merely target a lowered increase in CO₂ emissions. (ie. we don't even pretend to want to stop the increased output)
II. Part
CONNECT THE DOTS!
If, by agreeing to the the above points, you apply reason, you will end up with a conclusion like this:
Short of a major nuclear war/epidemic, humanity is going to go on using fossil fuels until they are close to depleted.
Large scale transition to renewables and electrification of the infrastructure will merely help to postpone an inevitable CO₂ fate with most of all fossil fuels ending up back in the atmosphere.
This will lead to long-term warming of the climate.
c) Exceptions
1. More than half of the industrialized world is wiped out in one catastrophic event in the near future, which leads to rebooting humanity in a world with no special interest groups and no status quo technologies. Given that renewable energy sources and electrified transport systems can re-emerge from the ruins of our civilization and establish dominance over fossil ones, we can hope that CO₂ concentration can stall.
This is, however, likely to be temporary as some isolated groups may independently develop their new, fossil-based economies. This is exacerbated by the fact that probably not all humanity will be equally hit by such a catastrophe, with some groups' current fossil tech remaining fairly operational after the apocalypse.
Moreover, some fossil element of any future economy is likely to be present. Even if fossil is a minor constituant of a community's energy mix, if used for long enough periods, it will eventually end up spuring the same CO₂ concentration as current trends would in a much shorter time period.
Comments
Post a Comment