• fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Many people have been manipulated into thinking of this whole problem as a “flow” or “rate” problem.

    “If we could only slow down carbon…”

    The thing is that what we have is a “sink” or “stock” problem where it’s how much carbon is already in the system – it’s past actions that are already closed off to further change that are influencing things now

    The rate of change in climate isn’t from the rate of this year’s contribution of 4ppm of CO2, it’s from having 423ppm in the system all together forcing a very large shift in energy imbalance.

    There is no solution space where slowing down the rate is meaningful. Going to zero or net negative for the ANNUAL rate next year is too small a lever against what work would need to happen to make a meaningful difference.

    The TOTAL HISTORICAL carbon that is already there would have to be entirely removed and even that wouldn’t put the system all the way back due to inertia and other nonlinearities.

    What you’re feeling today in the climate is actually geared to the emissions levels that were already achieved no more recently than 15 years ago in the past. What we do today will have effects that will only start in 15 years and take a long time to fully play out with effects still coming into play 100 years from today. This is a very very long lag time that confuses everything in terms of human feedbacks and human proof and human priorities.

    A great number of people think we know what to do but we were too greedy and corrupt to do it.

    I disagree. I think we have no idea what to even do. Humanity does not have the technology or capability to be sustainable. And so we think and talk about it wrongly because we do not want to accept that we are doomed.

    • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Just to back up what your saying MIT have a nice explainer on carbon lifetimes[0].

      I don’t know if I feel as doomed as you though. There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc). And moreover, a lot of the carbon use today is completely unecessary consumerism.

      We’ve had 30 years of political inertia since Regan/Thatcher/etc so political change seems impossible to a lot of folks. Historically that’s just not the case. Before then, voter rights, civil rights, women’s rights all made huge political changes. If there’s any silver lining to the horror show of US politics at the moment, it should be that there is at least proof that massive structural change is possible in today’s political climate, and I genuinely believe that can be harnessed for good.

      I don’t think there’s any guarantees, but it’s still a lot too early to give up.

      [0] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere

      • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc).

        You’re only talking about reducing the rate of increases. That’s irrelevant. Carbon would still be growing, not shrinking.

        As I stated, we need a way to decrease the existing carbon, which is a different, much larger problem, with no technology and nothing waiting in the wings. We have no ideas. Renewable or rebuildable power systems could be useful, but how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what’s the tech for that?

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Humanity does not have the technology or capability to be sustainable

      We absolutely have the technology, it’s just being blocked from being implemented on emergency timescales by soulless oil and gas corpo suits that have almost de-facto control of governments in most countries.

        • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 minutes ago
          • Solar and Wind power are cheap and are infinitely scalable on both small and large scales.
          • Public transport massively reduces energy requirements for transportation, and scales from bullet trains to light rail. Bike paths combined with ebikes can be used for smaller scales.
          • Vegan diets massively reduce emissions and energy requirements to produce calories for a population
          • Iron-air batteries are right now viable as an alternative to fossil fuel powered container ships. They are viable at large scales. For small scale between short distances, sailboats are still quite viable.
          • High density urban planning done by the Edenicity plan reduces suburban sprawl and massively reduces energy consumption by allowing for an urban area to be energy and food self sufficient. This concept scales to both small villages or large cities.

          The tech is there. The only thing stopping us is a lack of political will due to capitalism resulting in oligarchs who have captured the political system, and a lack of public awareness of alternative ways of life due to poor education and propaganda.

          A properly informed public that understands the extreme dangers of climate change, oligarchic capitalism, and the viability of changing things with collective power would allow us to use these existing technologies and prevent the devastation we’re headed toward.