“It looks like a war zone,” he said. Because it is.
August 16, 2016 6:11 AM Subscribe
Bill McKibben asks us for a WWII-scale climate change mobilization. Maybe it's time to think of climate change as a war, argues Bill McKibben (founder of 350.org).
Because "War on X" has gone so well for so many issues in the past.
posted by festivus at 6:23 AM on August 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by festivus at 6:23 AM on August 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
...except the war on war, of course.
posted by fairmettle at 6:25 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by fairmettle at 6:25 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
The war constituency in the US (which is sort of the only war constituency in the West) is also the section of society that doesn't believe in climate change.
I mean, I'm not sure if this is true (and I'm sure I oversimplify), but it seems plausible and relevant if true. The thesis is that the volunteer armed forces are drawn disproportionately from a para-martial / honor-cultural stratum of US society, and that this stratum is also the core for Republican cultural politics, which have come to include climate change denial. These folks' commitment helps make American military power so effective, but can't easily be brought to bear on something like climate change. So the motivational value of a "war" on climate change might be small.
It's been tricky to confirm / disconfirm this from military demographics, and I can't find any enlisted-soldier opinion polling on e.g. climate change (maybe there's no enlisted-soldier opinion polling!). Very much welcome comments from those more knowledgeable!
posted by grobstein at 6:26 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I'm not sure if this is true (and I'm sure I oversimplify), but it seems plausible and relevant if true. The thesis is that the volunteer armed forces are drawn disproportionately from a para-martial / honor-cultural stratum of US society, and that this stratum is also the core for Republican cultural politics, which have come to include climate change denial. These folks' commitment helps make American military power so effective, but can't easily be brought to bear on something like climate change. So the motivational value of a "war" on climate change might be small.
It's been tricky to confirm / disconfirm this from military demographics, and I can't find any enlisted-soldier opinion polling on e.g. climate change (maybe there's no enlisted-soldier opinion polling!). Very much welcome comments from those more knowledgeable!
posted by grobstein at 6:26 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
fairmettle: ...except the war on war, of course.
♫ You're gonna lose
You have to lose
You have to learn how to die ♫
posted by cacofonie at 6:28 AM on August 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
♫ You're gonna lose
You have to lose
You have to learn how to die ♫
posted by cacofonie at 6:28 AM on August 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Consider Obama's approval rating among active-duty troops, which started low and fell to only 15% in 2014. (So there are polls!) (I don't know the current figures.)
posted by grobstein at 6:30 AM on August 16, 2016
posted by grobstein at 6:30 AM on August 16, 2016
The War On Poverty went okay, given that it was run by Americans. It was sort of like the first War of the Ring, though (to use a Tolkien analogy) - if you don't destroy Barad-Dur, the problems just come back again.
I mean, I can't imagine that a "war on climate change" would actually mobilize anyone. Climate change is basically like having a volunteer army - rich people profit from war/climate change and it's not like their kids are going to be hurting, so there's no incentive to fix anything. But I don't think this is especially the fault of the metaphor - it's not as though if we declared "Hug It Out On Climate Change" then everyone would sign up for carbon reduction agreements.
posted by Frowner at 6:31 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I can't imagine that a "war on climate change" would actually mobilize anyone. Climate change is basically like having a volunteer army - rich people profit from war/climate change and it's not like their kids are going to be hurting, so there's no incentive to fix anything. But I don't think this is especially the fault of the metaphor - it's not as though if we declared "Hug It Out On Climate Change" then everyone would sign up for carbon reduction agreements.
posted by Frowner at 6:31 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, in a volunteer army, people sign up to go to war partly because they find the concept of war compelling. It's true that the pay and benefits are competitive for very poor Americans, but very poor Americans are actually underrepresented in the military, not overrepresented.
posted by grobstein at 6:35 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by grobstein at 6:35 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The depressing part is that he is right -- it would take national mobilization on the scale of the WWII war mobilization effort, to make a meaningful change in the climate trajectory at this point -- and that seems less likely all the time.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:38 AM on August 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 6:38 AM on August 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
The depressing part is that he is right -- it would take national mobilization on the scale of the WWII war mobilization effort, to make a meaningful change in the climate trajectory at this point -- and that seems less likely all the time.
I actually reacted the other way: I'm encouraged that anything we can do at this point will help. The WWII plan is at least a plan, and honestly I wasn't sure we still had a plan that could do anything. Is it going to happen? Probably not, almost certainly not, but I feel a little better knowing what I should be arguing for, not just against.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:40 AM on August 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
I actually reacted the other way: I'm encouraged that anything we can do at this point will help. The WWII plan is at least a plan, and honestly I wasn't sure we still had a plan that could do anything. Is it going to happen? Probably not, almost certainly not, but I feel a little better knowing what I should be arguing for, not just against.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:40 AM on August 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Now all we have to do is convince all the people who are making shitloads of money with the world the way it is that they need to stop doing that.
posted by delfin at 6:42 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by delfin at 6:42 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now all we have to do is convince all the people who are making shitloads of money with the world the way it is that they need to stop doing that.
No no no, just make sure you recycle that paper bag. That should do it.
posted by beerperson at 6:48 AM on August 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
No no no, just make sure you recycle that paper bag. That should do it.
posted by beerperson at 6:48 AM on August 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
McKibben's idea here -- massive top down mobilization of economic resources toward transitioning to clean energy -- is such a no-brainer and has been since at least the Carter presidency that it's easy to get frustrated we're doing so little (for all the variety of sins). There's also plenty to be hopeful about in the article. The effort is big, but well short of too big to handle. Don't throw up your hands yet.
posted by notyou at 7:05 AM on August 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by notyou at 7:05 AM on August 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Consider Obama's approval rating among active-duty troops, which started low and fell to only 15% in 2014. (So there are polls!)
Those are Military Times surveys, which -- unless they've changed things up -- are not actually surveys and are not-real-surveys of Military Times subscribers, not the military. IIRC you're getting a nonrandom sample of, mostly, people who are keeping an eye on the promotion boards?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:40 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Those are Military Times surveys, which -- unless they've changed things up -- are not actually surveys and are not-real-surveys of Military Times subscribers, not the military. IIRC you're getting a nonrandom sample of, mostly, people who are keeping an eye on the promotion boards?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:40 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
"We’re used to war as metaphor: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on cancer. Usually this is just a rhetorical device, a way of saying, “We need to focus our attention and marshal our forces to fix something we don’t like.” But this is no metaphor."
It literally is a metaphor. That just makes me mad.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 7:46 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
It literally is a metaphor. That just makes me mad.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 7:46 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Now all we have to do is convince all the people who are making shitloads of money with the world the way it is that they need to stop doing that.
all things considered, from a global reference point, you are probably one of those people making shitloads of money. now what?
the biggest effort in reducing CO2 emissions in recent times was global recession of 2007.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:52 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
all things considered, from a global reference point, you are probably one of those people making shitloads of money. now what?
the biggest effort in reducing CO2 emissions in recent times was global recession of 2007.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:52 AM on August 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
It sounds like a corollary to 'never get involved in a land war in Asia.' Never pick a fight with your planet's atmosphere.
After all, we do need to breathe it.
posted by MrVisible at 7:57 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
After all, we do need to breathe it.
posted by MrVisible at 7:57 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Get your kicks before the shithouse goes up in flames, kids. Hopefully I'll be dead before the roving gangs of mutants seeking gasoline and water are roaming the countryside.
Ugh, can we not start in with this already? There's a lot we can do, and many of us are working our asses off to do it. Most of us privileged types won't be impacted nearly as hard nearly as fast as folks in developing nations near coastlines, so maybe we ought to think about them, rather than some fantasia out of McCarthy's The Road.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:18 AM on August 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Ugh, can we not start in with this already? There's a lot we can do, and many of us are working our asses off to do it. Most of us privileged types won't be impacted nearly as hard nearly as fast as folks in developing nations near coastlines, so maybe we ought to think about them, rather than some fantasia out of McCarthy's The Road.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:18 AM on August 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Made of Star Stuff, I took his use of "war" to mean "an all-out offensive where your survival is in jeopardy" distinguished from a "fight" because of the team-building aspects. When masses of people work in unison to defeat an existential threat, that sort of thing.
I suppose that's a metaphor if we confine the definition of literal war to "opposing teams of apes trying to kill each another rather than be killed" or "when nation-states turn pointy" but that seems needlessly specific for such a basic concept as "conflict to the death (group variety)."
Maybe I'm being peevishly antipedantic. Somebody call in the nearest emergency response linguist to sort this out with evidence-based descriptivist authority, please.
(P.S. I think it's very brave of Made of Star Stuff to use "literally" when making a statement like this considering, of course, the magically ambiguous nature of a word that means both its face value and also the opposite of its face value. Such wild cards are playfully suitable in any discussion of the true meaning of X, so you can work in the jokes.)
posted by Construction Concern at 8:19 AM on August 16, 2016
I suppose that's a metaphor if we confine the definition of literal war to "opposing teams of apes trying to kill each another rather than be killed" or "when nation-states turn pointy" but that seems needlessly specific for such a basic concept as "conflict to the death (group variety)."
Maybe I'm being peevishly antipedantic. Somebody call in the nearest emergency response linguist to sort this out with evidence-based descriptivist authority, please.
(P.S. I think it's very brave of Made of Star Stuff to use "literally" when making a statement like this considering, of course, the magically ambiguous nature of a word that means both its face value and also the opposite of its face value. Such wild cards are playfully suitable in any discussion of the true meaning of X, so you can work in the jokes.)
posted by Construction Concern at 8:19 AM on August 16, 2016
Here is Stuart McMillen making this case in beautiful online comic strip form.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:30 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:30 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
The depressing part is that he is right -- it would take national mobilization on the scale of the WWII war mobilization effort, to make a meaningful change in the climate trajectory at this point -- and that seems less likely all the time.
We had our chance, we blew it, and it's far too late now. Get your kicks before the shithouse goes up in flames, kids. Hopefully I'll be dead before the roving gangs of mutants seeking gasoline and water are roaming the countryside.
Okay, I am gonna start sounding like a broken record on this issue because I wrote a couple walls of text about it here just a couple days ago. But here goes:
There is a vogue on this forum (and in the public sphere in general) for a kind of sanctimonious nihilism with regard to climate change -- a tendency to throw up our hands and say, don't you yokels get it? The damage is already done, we can't stop anything, so let's toss out a couple of Mad Max references. The convenient thing about being a prophet of doom is that you absolve yourself from averting doom.
The problem is, that is very far from the truth. Yes, we have already committed to making things bad. Yes, it's going to be quite difficult to enact the required large-scale, multinational response. But there is almost no widespread recognition that it can get orders of magnitude worse than it already is, and we still have a chance to avert that.
How much worse can it get? Here are some numbers for you. We've burned through about 375 gigatons of carbon since the start of the industrial revolution. However, total carbon reserves (i.e. easily extractable) are between 1,000 and 2,000 gigatons of carbon, and total carbon resources (carbon whose extraction is 'potentially feasible') is between 8,500 and 13,500 gigatons. (Source: this paper from the IPCC, Table 7.2).
The release of 375 gigatons of carbon in 200 years is a shock to the system, and among the other changes we have wrought, it's fair to say that a significant loss of biodiversity is underway. Such a high rate of carbon release is nearly unprecedented in Earth history, except perhaps for an asteroid impact. Also, considering that this is happening while we still have significant glacial cover, the loss of equilibrium (especially in the oceans) will be compounded with the addition of meltwater and the change in albedo. Silicate weathering reactions and oceanic calcite precipitation will eventually draw CO2 out of the atmosphere and ocean, but those processes work very slowly by our standards.
And yet: it goes without saying that the total recoverable inventory of ~10,000 gigatons, or even 2,000 gigatons, is significantly more severe than the 375 gigatons already released. Despite the incredible rate at which we have released it, 375 gigatons is not a gigantic amount of carbon compared to the most destructive events in Earth's history. The PETM involved a release of 3,000 to 13,000 gigatons of carbon, and the Permian-Triassic extinction is estimated to have involved an outgassing of 10,000 to 20,000 gigatons of carbon from a combination of sources.
In other words, it can get much, much worse -- but that means that we still have time to prevent it from getting much, much worse.
There is a problematic consequence to the alarming exhortations that we have been hearing repeatedly for decades: we have to wake up, we have to do something right now before it's too late. But when the concerted action doesn't materialize, we start to think, "well, that was our last chance. They said we have to act NOW, but we didn't. So what's the damn point? We already lost! Don't patch the leak in the boat, get your hatchet and chop it to bits!" But that's really not true. We have hemorrhaged hydrocarbon, but there is a vastly larger amount of it still sitting in the ground. We can still elect to keep most of it right where it is.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:09 AM on August 16, 2016 [45 favorites]
We had our chance, we blew it, and it's far too late now. Get your kicks before the shithouse goes up in flames, kids. Hopefully I'll be dead before the roving gangs of mutants seeking gasoline and water are roaming the countryside.
Okay, I am gonna start sounding like a broken record on this issue because I wrote a couple walls of text about it here just a couple days ago. But here goes:
There is a vogue on this forum (and in the public sphere in general) for a kind of sanctimonious nihilism with regard to climate change -- a tendency to throw up our hands and say, don't you yokels get it? The damage is already done, we can't stop anything, so let's toss out a couple of Mad Max references. The convenient thing about being a prophet of doom is that you absolve yourself from averting doom.
The problem is, that is very far from the truth. Yes, we have already committed to making things bad. Yes, it's going to be quite difficult to enact the required large-scale, multinational response. But there is almost no widespread recognition that it can get orders of magnitude worse than it already is, and we still have a chance to avert that.
How much worse can it get? Here are some numbers for you. We've burned through about 375 gigatons of carbon since the start of the industrial revolution. However, total carbon reserves (i.e. easily extractable) are between 1,000 and 2,000 gigatons of carbon, and total carbon resources (carbon whose extraction is 'potentially feasible') is between 8,500 and 13,500 gigatons. (Source: this paper from the IPCC, Table 7.2).
The release of 375 gigatons of carbon in 200 years is a shock to the system, and among the other changes we have wrought, it's fair to say that a significant loss of biodiversity is underway. Such a high rate of carbon release is nearly unprecedented in Earth history, except perhaps for an asteroid impact. Also, considering that this is happening while we still have significant glacial cover, the loss of equilibrium (especially in the oceans) will be compounded with the addition of meltwater and the change in albedo. Silicate weathering reactions and oceanic calcite precipitation will eventually draw CO2 out of the atmosphere and ocean, but those processes work very slowly by our standards.
And yet: it goes without saying that the total recoverable inventory of ~10,000 gigatons, or even 2,000 gigatons, is significantly more severe than the 375 gigatons already released. Despite the incredible rate at which we have released it, 375 gigatons is not a gigantic amount of carbon compared to the most destructive events in Earth's history. The PETM involved a release of 3,000 to 13,000 gigatons of carbon, and the Permian-Triassic extinction is estimated to have involved an outgassing of 10,000 to 20,000 gigatons of carbon from a combination of sources.
In other words, it can get much, much worse -- but that means that we still have time to prevent it from getting much, much worse.
There is a problematic consequence to the alarming exhortations that we have been hearing repeatedly for decades: we have to wake up, we have to do something right now before it's too late. But when the concerted action doesn't materialize, we start to think, "well, that was our last chance. They said we have to act NOW, but we didn't. So what's the damn point? We already lost! Don't patch the leak in the boat, get your hatchet and chop it to bits!" But that's really not true. We have hemorrhaged hydrocarbon, but there is a vastly larger amount of it still sitting in the ground. We can still elect to keep most of it right where it is.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:09 AM on August 16, 2016 [45 favorites]
We have hemorrhaged hydrocarbon, but there is a vastly larger amount of it still sitting in the ground. We can still elect to keep most of it right where it is.
Okay, how?
Given the apparently intractable nature of the Jevons paradox, it's hard to see a course of action that would result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel usage.
posted by MrVisible at 9:26 AM on August 16, 2016
Okay, how?
Given the apparently intractable nature of the Jevons paradox, it's hard to see a course of action that would result in a significant reduction in fossil fuel usage.
posted by MrVisible at 9:26 AM on August 16, 2016
The release of 375 gigatons of carbon in 200 years is a shock to the system...
which system? global ecology or capitalism? one of those two systems is a lot more resilient than the other...
posted by ennui.bz at 9:28 AM on August 16, 2016
which system? global ecology or capitalism? one of those two systems is a lot more resilient than the other...
posted by ennui.bz at 9:28 AM on August 16, 2016
It literally is a metaphor. That just makes me mad.
Clearly the required branding is "Jihad Against Climate Change", to be more accurate and to properly appeal to all constituencies.
posted by XMLicious at 10:16 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Vic – I'm with you and I'm also not with you. From what I know, the science is right.
We may double or triple the amount of carbon, however I doubt human energy sources will go beyond that. I don't see that we have a long-term human-generated energy related carbon problem, as renewable technology is developing at breakneck speed. Artificial intelligence and machine learning will accelerate increased efficiency in nearly every area. Supply chain capacity expansion and urbanisation will drive down costs and drive up adoption. In the long view, we and the world will be fine.
The big big watch area is which version of us and the world makes it.
In between here and clean energy valhalla is a lot of climate change related risk. It's not simply generating clean energy – that's going to take time. We also need to manage the effects already in the pipeline. Water shortages. Crop changes. Forest fires. Sea rises. Extinctions. Plummeting biodiversity. Disease.
We're already seeing rises in each of those areas, and they have knock-on effects into economic systems and general human life. Water is already serious issue – both drought and flooding. One figure indicates combatting drought and equatorial heat will consume 1% of GDP in 2050.
Managing climate related impact can easily consume global economic growth – which leads to social instability.
How will we handle the flooding of Mumbai and Miami?
How will we account for the capital losses?
How will we distribute those losses in society?
If large-scale devastation hits, will homeowners be considered "too big to fail" and will we take those losses onto public books?
How are we going to handle collapses in oil-driven countries?
How are we going to handle disease?
So many questions. It's less concerning about if the planet makes it through the climate pinch, and more concerning if human civilisation does, for all the externalities come home to roost and we have to think differently about economics.
Finally, in terms of the world we live in, what world will that be? Will there be polar caps, polar bears, whales, and penguins? Will we eat delicious fish or farmed insects?
There's a big quality of life question there – in terms of what world will we enjoy? What flowers and trees will it have? What level of biodiversity? Will we recognise that world?
posted by nickrussell at 10:33 AM on August 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
We may double or triple the amount of carbon, however I doubt human energy sources will go beyond that. I don't see that we have a long-term human-generated energy related carbon problem, as renewable technology is developing at breakneck speed. Artificial intelligence and machine learning will accelerate increased efficiency in nearly every area. Supply chain capacity expansion and urbanisation will drive down costs and drive up adoption. In the long view, we and the world will be fine.
The big big watch area is which version of us and the world makes it.
In between here and clean energy valhalla is a lot of climate change related risk. It's not simply generating clean energy – that's going to take time. We also need to manage the effects already in the pipeline. Water shortages. Crop changes. Forest fires. Sea rises. Extinctions. Plummeting biodiversity. Disease.
We're already seeing rises in each of those areas, and they have knock-on effects into economic systems and general human life. Water is already serious issue – both drought and flooding. One figure indicates combatting drought and equatorial heat will consume 1% of GDP in 2050.
Managing climate related impact can easily consume global economic growth – which leads to social instability.
How will we handle the flooding of Mumbai and Miami?
How will we account for the capital losses?
How will we distribute those losses in society?
If large-scale devastation hits, will homeowners be considered "too big to fail" and will we take those losses onto public books?
How are we going to handle collapses in oil-driven countries?
How are we going to handle disease?
So many questions. It's less concerning about if the planet makes it through the climate pinch, and more concerning if human civilisation does, for all the externalities come home to roost and we have to think differently about economics.
Finally, in terms of the world we live in, what world will that be? Will there be polar caps, polar bears, whales, and penguins? Will we eat delicious fish or farmed insects?
There's a big quality of life question there – in terms of what world will we enjoy? What flowers and trees will it have? What level of biodiversity? Will we recognise that world?
posted by nickrussell at 10:33 AM on August 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, the Jevons Paradox is a troubling phenomenon. I'd say our best hope of ameliorating its effects is to progressively source a larger fraction of our energy grid in nuclear and renewables. (Seriously, people, we have got to get over our squeamishness about nuclear energy. The hippies were dead fucking wrong; it may be our best hope for replacing fossil fuels for the near future.)
If we can get Clinton in the White House, and if we can add a Democratic majority to the Senate or even the House, I'd advocate for a substantial government investment in developing alternative energy and emissions management. Hell, Clinton could include that as part of her proposed investments in infrastructure.
Global demographic trends are also a critical component in planning for the future. According to the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050. In another 25 years, by 2075, it is projected to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 percent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by 2300. Therefore, world population growth beyond 2050, at least for the following 250 years, is expected to be minimal. The high and low scenarios are considerably different. Population will not level off in either case. In the high scenario, it will go from 10.63 billion in 2050 to 36.44 billion in 2300. In only the half century from 2050 to 2100, world population will grow by a third, by 3.39 billion. In the low scenario... [population will drop] over the entire period to 2300, by two-thirds, from 7.41 billion in 2050 to 2.31 billion in 2300."
Obviously, there is a very wide range of uncertainty in these projections. But let's not fool ourselves that working toward a lower carbon footprint is no more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like, oh, pick your metaphor -- say, unhooking the back cars of a runaway train to reduce the momentum of the eventual crash. It ain't gonna be pretty, but we can stem some of the damage.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 10:38 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we can get Clinton in the White House, and if we can add a Democratic majority to the Senate or even the House, I'd advocate for a substantial government investment in developing alternative energy and emissions management. Hell, Clinton could include that as part of her proposed investments in infrastructure.
Global demographic trends are also a critical component in planning for the future. According to the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050. In another 25 years, by 2075, it is projected to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 percent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by 2300. Therefore, world population growth beyond 2050, at least for the following 250 years, is expected to be minimal. The high and low scenarios are considerably different. Population will not level off in either case. In the high scenario, it will go from 10.63 billion in 2050 to 36.44 billion in 2300. In only the half century from 2050 to 2100, world population will grow by a third, by 3.39 billion. In the low scenario... [population will drop] over the entire period to 2300, by two-thirds, from 7.41 billion in 2050 to 2.31 billion in 2300."
Obviously, there is a very wide range of uncertainty in these projections. But let's not fool ourselves that working toward a lower carbon footprint is no more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like, oh, pick your metaphor -- say, unhooking the back cars of a runaway train to reduce the momentum of the eventual crash. It ain't gonna be pretty, but we can stem some of the damage.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 10:38 AM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Seriously, people, we have got to get over our squeamishness about nuclear energy. The hippies were dead fucking wrong...
yeah seriously, it's too bad our society is run by hippies...
you don't get nuclear power without massive state intervention in the energy production market. correspondingly, if you want nuclear power, then you have to argue for a greater state role in energy production. if there was a market-based case for nuclear power in the US, surely it would have happened already?
or are the hippies so powerful that 40 years of pro free-market government mean nothing?
posted by ennui.bz at 10:46 AM on August 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
yeah seriously, it's too bad our society is run by hippies...
you don't get nuclear power without massive state intervention in the energy production market. correspondingly, if you want nuclear power, then you have to argue for a greater state role in energy production. if there was a market-based case for nuclear power in the US, surely it would have happened already?
or are the hippies so powerful that 40 years of pro free-market government mean nothing?
posted by ennui.bz at 10:46 AM on August 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
We don't need to stop using oil. We need to stop pumping it.
As long as it's being pumped, it'll be used.
As long as people are using it, it'll be pumped.
If a large group of people stop using it, the price will go down, and more people will use it.
Trying to staunch the flow of oil at the consumer level is like strying to stop a hemorrhage by mopping the blood off the floor.
Until there's a concerted global effort to stop the oil producers from pumping, it's pretty obvious that everything else is a feel-good placebo.
posted by MrVisible at 10:52 AM on August 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
As long as it's being pumped, it'll be used.
As long as people are using it, it'll be pumped.
If a large group of people stop using it, the price will go down, and more people will use it.
Trying to staunch the flow of oil at the consumer level is like strying to stop a hemorrhage by mopping the blood off the floor.
Until there's a concerted global effort to stop the oil producers from pumping, it's pretty obvious that everything else is a feel-good placebo.
posted by MrVisible at 10:52 AM on August 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
if you want nuclear power, then you have to argue for a greater state role in energy production.
Perhaps even argue for doing like the USA did in WWII. For those who did not RTFA: Borrowing unprecedented amounts of money into existence, stepping in to practically take over the management of national industrial production, forcing factories into producing war equipment, expropriating and nationalizing those that don't cooperate, passing laws to limit the profiteering by those who do, and at the same time building new directly state-owned production capacity. And then after however many decades or centuries this war takes, presumably you would profit and enjoy an economic boom because you have abundant natural resources and all the other major industrial powers where the fighting took place were smashed to bits. But anyway the "war" proposed does not involve soldiers aiming their rifles at the sky to shoot down carbon dioxide and methane molecules.
I hope the schedule includes a decade or two for sorting out the initial round of lawsuits.
posted by sfenders at 11:10 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Perhaps even argue for doing like the USA did in WWII. For those who did not RTFA: Borrowing unprecedented amounts of money into existence, stepping in to practically take over the management of national industrial production, forcing factories into producing war equipment, expropriating and nationalizing those that don't cooperate, passing laws to limit the profiteering by those who do, and at the same time building new directly state-owned production capacity. And then after however many decades or centuries this war takes, presumably you would profit and enjoy an economic boom because you have abundant natural resources and all the other major industrial powers where the fighting took place were smashed to bits. But anyway the "war" proposed does not involve soldiers aiming their rifles at the sky to shoot down carbon dioxide and methane molecules.
I hope the schedule includes a decade or two for sorting out the initial round of lawsuits.
posted by sfenders at 11:10 AM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regardless of who is running the country, there is a significant public perception problem with nuclear power in America. The disastrous worst case scenarios get all the attention, and it's much more difficult to convey the benefits of switching to carbon-neutral nuclear power in a punchy way. We react with horror to Fukushima and bite our nails over the specter of terrorism, while ignoring the example of France, which draws 75% of its power from nuclear energy, is a net exporter of electricity, and has never experienced a nuclear disaster.
So yes, the public perception problem, combined with a serious nationwide case of NIMBY, has built up a mulish resistance to the possibility of a nuclear energy grid.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 11:37 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
So yes, the public perception problem, combined with a serious nationwide case of NIMBY, has built up a mulish resistance to the possibility of a nuclear energy grid.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 11:37 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most of us privileged types won't be impacted nearly as hard nearly as fast as folks in developing nations near coastlines, so maybe we ought to think about them
Presumably they're in the role of the Soviet Union in this WWII analogy, most immediately exposed, and maneuvered by the other Allied nations into bearing the vast majority of the casualties necessary to win the war.
posted by XMLicious at 11:37 AM on August 16, 2016
(addendum with regard to nuclear power: I'll add that we also tend to ignore the fact that 20% of America's electricity is already generated by 100 nuclear reactors around the country.)
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 11:47 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 11:47 AM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Look, if we're going to go all "nuclear power yay", could we at least commit to not building the plants or storing the waste on/near Native land? You don't need to be nuclear-paranoid to admit that really existing nuclear power plants and nuclear waste are not generally dealt with in a socially equitable manner.
posted by Frowner at 12:14 PM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Frowner at 12:14 PM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Will A President Hillary Clinton Close Down Nuclear Power Plants?
No. In fact, Clinton generally supports nuclear energy. She does not want any nuclear power plants to close prematurely, particularly the New York Indian Point nuclear plant. Clinton says that “rapidly shutting down our nation’s nuclear power fleet puts ideology ahead of science and would make it harder and costlier to build a clean energy future”, agreeing with EPA chief Gina McCarthy, leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen and almost all nuclear scientists.posted by gwint at 12:22 PM on August 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton opposes the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository and supports the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations for our nuclear future.
She is the most reasoned candidate on energy we’ve ever had running for President.
The Clinton campaign laid out a policy goal of achieving 33% of U.S. electricity from non-carbon-emitting sources by 2027, including maintaining our nuclear energy fleet.
Doesn't the nuclear energy question also hinge on how expensive it is? If renewables are cheaper and your grid has other ways of dealing with local mismatches of consumption and production, why bother with nuclear power?
posted by indubitable at 12:45 PM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 12:45 PM on August 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton opposes the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository and supports the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations for our nuclear future.
Those recommendations from the linked report seem to boil down to "store it at the WIPP instead!" Which may have been reasonable in 2012 when the report was written, but the facility has been shut down since an accident in 2014. It does not seem to be a realistic solution to waste disposal right now.
posted by indubitable at 1:08 PM on August 16, 2016
Those recommendations from the linked report seem to boil down to "store it at the WIPP instead!" Which may have been reasonable in 2012 when the report was written, but the facility has been shut down since an accident in 2014. It does not seem to be a realistic solution to waste disposal right now.
posted by indubitable at 1:08 PM on August 16, 2016
I've often pointed to the effort behind winning WW II as an example of what an energized, focussed national or international effort could accomplish re AGW. But now that the well-funded anti-AGW campaign has so successfully infected so many, I can't see how anything will get off the ground til the crisis is undeniable. For many that point will never be reached.
Nonetheless it's worth the effort. There are 1000 reasons besides climate change for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and not making so much of a mess, generally. There will always be benefits, regardless of when we do it.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:11 PM on August 16, 2016
Nonetheless it's worth the effort. There are 1000 reasons besides climate change for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and not making so much of a mess, generally. There will always be benefits, regardless of when we do it.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:11 PM on August 16, 2016
I've often pointed to the effort behind winning WW II as an example of what an energized, focussed national or international effort could accomplish re AGW.
I'd argue the opposite. A large percentage of the world went to war with another large percentage of the world, while a lot of other nations just skipped out.
If we're going to suck the CO2 out of the air, as the IPCC says we need to, we're going to need a concerted international effort, not just to have everyone universally stop using oil, but then to develop and deploy carbon-capture technology at considerable expense.
If a few nations decide not to participate, they've got an enormous military advantage over those who are. So we need universal participation.
In other words, world peace.
Not a great pre-requisite for a world-saving plan.
posted by MrVisible at 8:30 PM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd argue the opposite. A large percentage of the world went to war with another large percentage of the world, while a lot of other nations just skipped out.
If we're going to suck the CO2 out of the air, as the IPCC says we need to, we're going to need a concerted international effort, not just to have everyone universally stop using oil, but then to develop and deploy carbon-capture technology at considerable expense.
If a few nations decide not to participate, they've got an enormous military advantage over those who are. So we need universal participation.
In other words, world peace.
Not a great pre-requisite for a world-saving plan.
posted by MrVisible at 8:30 PM on August 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure one of the obstacles isn't just the idea that wealthier nations should spend money on reducing GHG emissions, it's also that the business world sees global unity as a major crimp in their plans to make the planet into a free-market wonderland. Hence their (and the US's) opposition to any increased powers or role for the UN, and acres of propaganda about how climate change is just a scheme to transfer wealth to poor countries.
posted by sneebler at 7:25 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sneebler at 7:25 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
We Just Lived Through The Hottest Month In Recorded History. 2016 is still on track for the hottest year ever.
posted by homunculus at 6:13 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:13 PM on August 17, 2016
Climate Change Is Spoiling the Crops on Right-Wing Content Farms: In which Alaskan hunters and gatherers are called government dependents by The Daily Caller.
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bill McKibben: The Axis Of Destruction And Hope
The Government Quietly Just Approved This Enormous Oil Pipeline
"For as long as it takes”: Native American protesters defy North Dakota Pipeline construction
Dakota Access Pipeline: Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Archambault Calls on Obama for Aid
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman: Dakota Access Pipeline "Is Threatening the Lives of My Tribe"
A Tale of Two Standoffs: The federal response to Lakota protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline couldn’t be more different than their reaction to this year’s Bundy occupation.
posted by homunculus at 4:15 PM on August 23, 2016
The Government Quietly Just Approved This Enormous Oil Pipeline
"For as long as it takes”: Native American protesters defy North Dakota Pipeline construction
Dakota Access Pipeline: Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Archambault Calls on Obama for Aid
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman: Dakota Access Pipeline "Is Threatening the Lives of My Tribe"
A Tale of Two Standoffs: The federal response to Lakota protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline couldn’t be more different than their reaction to this year’s Bundy occupation.
posted by homunculus at 4:15 PM on August 23, 2016
« Older "I wanted to try something a little bit different... | The Terrifying, Already Forgotten JFK Airport... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sfts2 at 6:21 AM on August 16, 2016