Let's talk about the climate, what do you know?
September 20, 2023 7:40 PM Subscribe
I talk about it all the time but no one with any power listens to me.
posted by supermedusa at 7:52 PM on September 20, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 7:52 PM on September 20, 2023 [8 favorites]
Around the floods in Libya: "The mayor of Derna, Abdulmenam Al-Ghaithi, told al-Arabiya that the final death toll in the city could range from 18,000 to 20,000, equivalent to a fifth of the city's population."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:07 PM on September 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 8:07 PM on September 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
This pdf is actuaries having a chat with corporations about it. Some fun graphs and charts in there.
posted by aniola at 8:08 PM on September 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by aniola at 8:08 PM on September 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
One environmental activists killed every other day in 2022
One key driver of violence is green extractivism: "extraction of rare earth minerals used in the production of electric cars .."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:13 PM on September 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
One key driver of violence is green extractivism: "extraction of rare earth minerals used in the production of electric cars .."
posted by jeffburdges at 8:13 PM on September 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
Aniola, the great pull quote from that actuary pdf is, "at what point do we expect 50% GDP destruction - somewhere between 2070 and 2090 depending on how you parameterise the distribution"
posted by ecco at 8:57 PM on September 20, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by ecco at 8:57 PM on September 20, 2023 [6 favorites]
My observation is that both BBC and DW news would seem to be closer to the news outlets cited (Guardian, Al Jazeera) than to US news networks in how they cover the catastrophe(s) du jour. While far from perfect, they at least do try to provide more context and they often feature guests who are qualified to speak to the science in a direct and fairly detailed manner, not nearly enough still, I suppose, but at least it does happen.
posted by clandestiny's child at 9:04 PM on September 20, 2023
posted by clandestiny's child at 9:04 PM on September 20, 2023
Given the way the media profession works, this is a hard thing to cover at all well.
I note, for example, this article mentions, more or less approvingly, a daily “weather-climate bulletin” where viewers can track global warming in real time. This is a horrible idea in terms of substance, like being told you need to do better reporting on the economy and announcing you'll report on the Dow twice per half-hour. The economy is about the same today as it was 24 hours ago, and so too with the climate. But news people need a news framing.
Environmental reporter David Roberts noted during the Trump administration that reporters eagerly covered EPA head Scott Pruitt's weird paranoia and willingness to expense first class flights. Which are laughably small fry compared to the massive destruction his policy preferences would bring. But only overspending on flights is a "scandal." Writing up his policies as a scandal would violate journalistic standards.
The article is very vague on how they'd actually manage the reporting. Showing footage of natural disasters or maps illustrating heat waves and putting "GLOBAL WARMING REPORT" in the chyron is not good climate reporting.
You need to figure out some way to cover the likely impact of policy decisions today on our outputs in ten years and what that means for the planet in 50 years.
TBF they gesture in that direction but it's such a challenge, given how most news is offered (and how people choose to approach it).
posted by mark k at 9:04 PM on September 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
I note, for example, this article mentions, more or less approvingly, a daily “weather-climate bulletin” where viewers can track global warming in real time. This is a horrible idea in terms of substance, like being told you need to do better reporting on the economy and announcing you'll report on the Dow twice per half-hour. The economy is about the same today as it was 24 hours ago, and so too with the climate. But news people need a news framing.
Environmental reporter David Roberts noted during the Trump administration that reporters eagerly covered EPA head Scott Pruitt's weird paranoia and willingness to expense first class flights. Which are laughably small fry compared to the massive destruction his policy preferences would bring. But only overspending on flights is a "scandal." Writing up his policies as a scandal would violate journalistic standards.
The article is very vague on how they'd actually manage the reporting. Showing footage of natural disasters or maps illustrating heat waves and putting "GLOBAL WARMING REPORT" in the chyron is not good climate reporting.
You need to figure out some way to cover the likely impact of policy decisions today on our outputs in ten years and what that means for the planet in 50 years.
TBF they gesture in that direction but it's such a challenge, given how most news is offered (and how people choose to approach it).
posted by mark k at 9:04 PM on September 20, 2023 [7 favorites]
The thing about climate change is while the results are clear, the bad guys have sown confusion about the cause. Which works, because it isn't something that people intuitively perceive to be a problem.
While I've never doubted climate change, the thing that really drove it home to me is thinking about it in terms of where heat goes. Space vehicles like the ISS are painted white, it turns out, to reduce the amount of sunlight they absorb, and they must be careful about how much heat they generate and radiate. Space is a vacuum, so the only practicable way to get rid of heat is radiation. If a body in space cannot radiate away what it takes in and produces, the heat will build up and its occupants will fry.
The Earth is such a body. We're surrounded by vacuum. The problem our planet faces is exactly the same. We are producing conditions that limit how effectively it can radiate heat away.
posted by JHarris at 9:17 PM on September 20, 2023 [11 favorites]
While I've never doubted climate change, the thing that really drove it home to me is thinking about it in terms of where heat goes. Space vehicles like the ISS are painted white, it turns out, to reduce the amount of sunlight they absorb, and they must be careful about how much heat they generate and radiate. Space is a vacuum, so the only practicable way to get rid of heat is radiation. If a body in space cannot radiate away what it takes in and produces, the heat will build up and its occupants will fry.
The Earth is such a body. We're surrounded by vacuum. The problem our planet faces is exactly the same. We are producing conditions that limit how effectively it can radiate heat away.
posted by JHarris at 9:17 PM on September 20, 2023 [11 favorites]
(Whether relating how I understand it intuitively or not helps I don't know, but I figure, it couldn't hurt? If it helps someone get over the hump of being able to understand how global temperature increases happen then I'm glad.)
posted by JHarris at 9:19 PM on September 20, 2023
posted by JHarris at 9:19 PM on September 20, 2023
I think this is a good opportunity to encourage Metafilter to read Ben Elton's novel Stark.
You can find a plot synopsis here.
On avalanches and Swords of Damocles:
The 'avalanche factor' was a term coined in honour of Professor Blakeley, whose death graphically demonstrated the fact that it is relatively easy to deduce a cause from an effect, but a mental nightmare to predict effects from causes. Who could possibly have figured out that a factory in Manchester would cause an avalanche? You'd need a brain the size of Hathrow airport. But, once it's ahppened, then it's comparatively easy to work backwards from the cause through a process of deduction. Causes do not become identified as causes until they have taken their effect. Meanwhile, you've got a mountain on your head or an ocean completely covered in smokers' phlegm.
This was what the World Government of Money feared most, the rogue eco-catastrophe, so unexpected, so obvious - after the event. The unpredictable disaster that would cheat them of their prize in the race for a solution to their predicament. The avalance factor.
...
As the Domesday Grouphad constantly made clear to Stark over the years the ecological cause and effect syndromes which they had isolated as The Swords Of Damocles were fery different ideed than those which were categorized under the Avalanche Effect.
...Ecologically, the difference between avalanches and Swords of Damocles was that with avalanches, you didn't know about them until they fell on you; but Swords of Damocles were slightly less serious because the danger was there for all to see, and hence it was possible to do something about it.
On Financial Chaos:
'This, then, gentlemen, is my suggestion. We engineer a crash. All together we begin to unload the very cream of our assets, creating a massive bear market. With the kind of mega-stock that we can load the shelf with, other lesser stock will become worthless. Who will buy John Citizen's meagre assets for a dollar when the mighty Slampacker group stocks are up for ten cents? Overnight, a panic spiral of previously unkonwn proportions will develop. A vortex of selling will cconsume all the notional capital in the world. Smal businesses, dependent on credit, will collapse. Little investors will go to the wall. As in previous crashes, only the very biggest will survive. Those with real assets, those who own the actual means of production will actually emerge even stronger because they will be all that's left. Us, gentlemen. Oh, sure, on paper our fortunes will be cut by 90 per cent, but in *relative* terms, compared to the carnage around us, we will be richer than ever. Add to this the fact that the prices of the commodities that we wish to buy will also collapse in the general crash: governments will lose huge tax revenues as businesses go bankrupt and men are laid off: millions will turn to welfare, the politicians will be desperate to raise money. Then, gentlemen, it will be a *buyers* market and *we* will be buying. In the months following the collapse, which will be our site construction period, governments will be counting their pennies to buy food. I should imagine everything from solar panelling to orbital guidance systems will be in the bargain bazaar.'
On the weather:
People's minds were turning to the Apocalypse. The weather has always been the source of endless conversation but now the mantra had changed. The song did not remain the same. Whereas previously the comment had always been along the lines of 'bloody awful weather...' no people constantly moaned that it was 'funny' weather; it was not like it had been when they were young; it was no longer 'proper' weather. The strange thing was that even teenagers spoke in this manner.
On how screwed we are in general:
'There are virtually no forests left. There are no longer any effective atmospheric barriers. Soon there will be no polar icecaps. Coupled with this, every single thing on this planet has been subjected, to a greater or lesser extent, to toxification. It is a fact that nothing on earth can be said to be clean. Not one drop of water, not one gulp of air, not one mouthful of food. It is all irreversibly filthy. Without the forests, deserts will very soon take over the majority of land remaining above sea-level. Which will not be much because once the ice has melted all low lying land will be submerged under a filthy sea.'
...'The degradation of the soil through salinization, chemical imbalance and intense over-farming is set to make almost all agriculture untenable worldwide. When that happens billions of people are going to turne on each other in starving fury. If it hadn't already died of skin cancer or toxic shock, the human race will commit bloody self-murder...'
'This combination of various ecological disasters, any one of which could see us off, we call the Vanishing Point and we are satisfied that it will occur in the next two or three years. It is a straw that broke the camel's back situation really. Things will stagger on just getting by, until one day a crack appears that shatters the entire structure and everything comes tumbling down at once.'
The novel was written in 1989. A TV series was made in 1993.
The book is available in digital format from a number of retailers, and there are used copies around too. Highly recommended.
posted by MrVisible at 11:19 PM on September 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
You can find a plot synopsis here.
Excerpts within. Caution: may be disturbing.
On avalanches and Swords of Damocles:
The 'avalanche factor' was a term coined in honour of Professor Blakeley, whose death graphically demonstrated the fact that it is relatively easy to deduce a cause from an effect, but a mental nightmare to predict effects from causes. Who could possibly have figured out that a factory in Manchester would cause an avalanche? You'd need a brain the size of Hathrow airport. But, once it's ahppened, then it's comparatively easy to work backwards from the cause through a process of deduction. Causes do not become identified as causes until they have taken their effect. Meanwhile, you've got a mountain on your head or an ocean completely covered in smokers' phlegm.
This was what the World Government of Money feared most, the rogue eco-catastrophe, so unexpected, so obvious - after the event. The unpredictable disaster that would cheat them of their prize in the race for a solution to their predicament. The avalance factor.
...
As the Domesday Grouphad constantly made clear to Stark over the years the ecological cause and effect syndromes which they had isolated as The Swords Of Damocles were fery different ideed than those which were categorized under the Avalanche Effect.
...Ecologically, the difference between avalanches and Swords of Damocles was that with avalanches, you didn't know about them until they fell on you; but Swords of Damocles were slightly less serious because the danger was there for all to see, and hence it was possible to do something about it.
On Financial Chaos:
'This, then, gentlemen, is my suggestion. We engineer a crash. All together we begin to unload the very cream of our assets, creating a massive bear market. With the kind of mega-stock that we can load the shelf with, other lesser stock will become worthless. Who will buy John Citizen's meagre assets for a dollar when the mighty Slampacker group stocks are up for ten cents? Overnight, a panic spiral of previously unkonwn proportions will develop. A vortex of selling will cconsume all the notional capital in the world. Smal businesses, dependent on credit, will collapse. Little investors will go to the wall. As in previous crashes, only the very biggest will survive. Those with real assets, those who own the actual means of production will actually emerge even stronger because they will be all that's left. Us, gentlemen. Oh, sure, on paper our fortunes will be cut by 90 per cent, but in *relative* terms, compared to the carnage around us, we will be richer than ever. Add to this the fact that the prices of the commodities that we wish to buy will also collapse in the general crash: governments will lose huge tax revenues as businesses go bankrupt and men are laid off: millions will turn to welfare, the politicians will be desperate to raise money. Then, gentlemen, it will be a *buyers* market and *we* will be buying. In the months following the collapse, which will be our site construction period, governments will be counting their pennies to buy food. I should imagine everything from solar panelling to orbital guidance systems will be in the bargain bazaar.'
On the weather:
People's minds were turning to the Apocalypse. The weather has always been the source of endless conversation but now the mantra had changed. The song did not remain the same. Whereas previously the comment had always been along the lines of 'bloody awful weather...' no people constantly moaned that it was 'funny' weather; it was not like it had been when they were young; it was no longer 'proper' weather. The strange thing was that even teenagers spoke in this manner.
On how screwed we are in general:
'There are virtually no forests left. There are no longer any effective atmospheric barriers. Soon there will be no polar icecaps. Coupled with this, every single thing on this planet has been subjected, to a greater or lesser extent, to toxification. It is a fact that nothing on earth can be said to be clean. Not one drop of water, not one gulp of air, not one mouthful of food. It is all irreversibly filthy. Without the forests, deserts will very soon take over the majority of land remaining above sea-level. Which will not be much because once the ice has melted all low lying land will be submerged under a filthy sea.'
...'The degradation of the soil through salinization, chemical imbalance and intense over-farming is set to make almost all agriculture untenable worldwide. When that happens billions of people are going to turne on each other in starving fury. If it hadn't already died of skin cancer or toxic shock, the human race will commit bloody self-murder...'
'This combination of various ecological disasters, any one of which could see us off, we call the Vanishing Point and we are satisfied that it will occur in the next two or three years. It is a straw that broke the camel's back situation really. Things will stagger on just getting by, until one day a crack appears that shatters the entire structure and everything comes tumbling down at once.'
The novel was written in 1989. A TV series was made in 1993.
The book is available in digital format from a number of retailers, and there are used copies around too. Highly recommended.
posted by MrVisible at 11:19 PM on September 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
I think this is a good opportunity to encourage Metafilter to read Ben Elton's novel Stark.
I've been thinking about that book so much lately. Most people look at me blankly when I mention it. And mention it I did when some jerkoffs flew into near space recently for fun.
I'm currently reading Venomous Lumpsucker, a wry dystopian text set in the (oh god so awfully close) future where 'extinction credits' are traded on the open market. Some are bought for dining purposes (a la Stark). Would recommend, if you are into such literature.
posted by Thella at 12:25 AM on September 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
I've been thinking about that book so much lately. Most people look at me blankly when I mention it. And mention it I did when some jerkoffs flew into near space recently for fun.
I'm currently reading Venomous Lumpsucker, a wry dystopian text set in the (oh god so awfully close) future where 'extinction credits' are traded on the open market. Some are bought for dining purposes (a la Stark). Would recommend, if you are into such literature.
posted by Thella at 12:25 AM on September 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
"by voting, by not buying unsustainable products, and by talking to friends and family about doing the same."
sigh.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OR SHOP OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
posted by confabulous at 12:42 AM on September 21, 2023 [15 favorites]
sigh.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OR SHOP OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
posted by confabulous at 12:42 AM on September 21, 2023 [15 favorites]
As an old - I declined to participate in two 20th century innovations - I don't drive and I don't watch TV.
And I examine my life almost on a daily basis, to consider how I can make as little negative impact and how I can make a positive impact. Amazing what years of Catholic education can do.
I agree that we are not going to shop our way out of this
BUT POLITICS IS IMPORTANT - mass movements are POLITICS and POLITICAL pressure can make changes
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 4:30 AM on September 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
And I examine my life almost on a daily basis, to consider how I can make as little negative impact and how I can make a positive impact. Amazing what years of Catholic education can do.
I agree that we are not going to shop our way out of this
BUT POLITICS IS IMPORTANT - mass movements are POLITICS and POLITICAL pressure can make changes
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 4:30 AM on September 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OR SHOP OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
I might be forgetting some local race at some point, but to my memory, I've never had the opportunity to vote for someone who was a single-issue climate candidate. Some candidates make some more noise towards that, some less, but it basically isn't a thing here. So yeah, we aren't voting our way out of this any more than we are shopping our way out.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:16 AM on September 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
I might be forgetting some local race at some point, but to my memory, I've never had the opportunity to vote for someone who was a single-issue climate candidate. Some candidates make some more noise towards that, some less, but it basically isn't a thing here. So yeah, we aren't voting our way out of this any more than we are shopping our way out.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:16 AM on September 21, 2023 [2 favorites]
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OR SHOP OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
agreed, for sure, but what is the difference between a Trump win in 2024 and a Biden win??
where, perchance, might we be now if Gore had been given his win in 2000?
how might things be different, maybe better, if Clinton had been given her (popular) win in 2016?
I'm not a big Gore fan, nor do I think Clinton walks on water, but I firmly believe we might be just a little bit closer to some actions that might make a difference.
so yeah, I'm gonna keep voting.
posted by supermedusa at 9:53 AM on September 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
agreed, for sure, but what is the difference between a Trump win in 2024 and a Biden win??
where, perchance, might we be now if Gore had been given his win in 2000?
how might things be different, maybe better, if Clinton had been given her (popular) win in 2016?
I'm not a big Gore fan, nor do I think Clinton walks on water, but I firmly believe we might be just a little bit closer to some actions that might make a difference.
so yeah, I'm gonna keep voting.
posted by supermedusa at 9:53 AM on September 21, 2023 [4 favorites]
The thing about climate change is while the results are clear, the bad guys have sown confusion about the cause. Which works, because it isn't something that people intuitively perceive to be a problem.
Lol. The "bad guys"? Somebody watches too many cartoons or superhero movies, I think.
We don't just have a society that happens to include a few fossil fuel producers and consumers, we have a global society which is built from the ground up using fossil fuel energy. I look around the room I'm sitting in, everything including low-tech things like books, has been manufactured and moved using fossil fuels. This house, which at 75 years old would be quite old in many countries is built of fossil fired bricks and blocks, finished with fossil fuel derived uPVC and aluminium. Even the wood was harvested, moved, and processed using fossil fuels.
Pretending that just because a few goons at Exxon Mobil weren't forthcoming with their in-house modelling in the year whatever, we can therefore just shift the entire weight of 250 years of global energy system evolution onto them is ridiculous. Fine, put them in the straw goat or whatever makes you happy, but it's completely meaningless to pretend that the emissions from our entire globe-spanning system of living is somehow the fault of a small number of "bad guys".
If you want to know why it has always been easy for the fossil fuel industry to convince politicians that we need more fossil fuels it's that the alternatives on offer until quite recently would have led to decreases in that all important material standard of living. Look how Americans piss their pants when their gasoline price goes up, all they ever needed to do is just glance meaningfully at the cost of gasoline (not to mention virtually every other product or service) and raise their eyebrows.
It is only now that we think we have alternatives that let everyone keep consuming the way we have been without fossil fuels that anyone wants to listen. (we don't, really, but will have to just consume less).
And no, Tobacco is not a good comparison. Cigarettes were a little product, with no other dependent industries and completely peripheral to the rest of society.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OR SHOP OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
Combining those two into one category is foolish. Individual consumption decisions obviously aren't going to make a difference but collective action through politics is the only way out. All of the progress made to date (and some countries like the UK have about halved their emissions since 1990) has been done through state action carried out by political leaders.
posted by atrazine at 10:17 AM on September 21, 2023 [8 favorites]
Lol. The "bad guys"? Somebody watches too many cartoons or superhero movies, I think.
We don't just have a society that happens to include a few fossil fuel producers and consumers, we have a global society which is built from the ground up using fossil fuel energy. I look around the room I'm sitting in, everything including low-tech things like books, has been manufactured and moved using fossil fuels. This house, which at 75 years old would be quite old in many countries is built of fossil fired bricks and blocks, finished with fossil fuel derived uPVC and aluminium. Even the wood was harvested, moved, and processed using fossil fuels.
Pretending that just because a few goons at Exxon Mobil weren't forthcoming with their in-house modelling in the year whatever, we can therefore just shift the entire weight of 250 years of global energy system evolution onto them is ridiculous. Fine, put them in the straw goat or whatever makes you happy, but it's completely meaningless to pretend that the emissions from our entire globe-spanning system of living is somehow the fault of a small number of "bad guys".
If you want to know why it has always been easy for the fossil fuel industry to convince politicians that we need more fossil fuels it's that the alternatives on offer until quite recently would have led to decreases in that all important material standard of living. Look how Americans piss their pants when their gasoline price goes up, all they ever needed to do is just glance meaningfully at the cost of gasoline (not to mention virtually every other product or service) and raise their eyebrows.
It is only now that we think we have alternatives that let everyone keep consuming the way we have been without fossil fuels that anyone wants to listen. (we don't, really, but will have to just consume less).
And no, Tobacco is not a good comparison. Cigarettes were a little product, with no other dependent industries and completely peripheral to the rest of society.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE OR SHOP OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
Combining those two into one category is foolish. Individual consumption decisions obviously aren't going to make a difference but collective action through politics is the only way out. All of the progress made to date (and some countries like the UK have about halved their emissions since 1990) has been done through state action carried out by political leaders.
posted by atrazine at 10:17 AM on September 21, 2023 [8 favorites]
Would you consider the Wilks brothers to be bad guys?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire
posted by Balna Watya at 11:07 AM on September 21, 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire
posted by Balna Watya at 11:07 AM on September 21, 2023
Can we please stop pretending that the US media doesn't know exactly what it's doing when it comes to stuff like being silent on climate change?
posted by abucci at 5:46 PM on September 21, 2023
posted by abucci at 5:46 PM on September 21, 2023
Yes, Dan n Farris Wilks have committed the worst crimes imaginable, like everyone else who works in fracking. All legitimate military targets for any tropical nation.
It's also true our society demands the existence of the Wilks. We'll change our society eventually, but likely only when forced to. I doubt politics could change this either, like could they really vote to drop GDP by so much? Yet we need people to try politics so that their failure can make possible more forceful things. I suspect the best case scenario would be other people forcing our society to change, while the worst case would be nature forcing us to.
We're all bad guys in some form or fashion of course, by virtue of living in our society powered by genocide. Yet we mostly do not personally represent legitimate military targets for a tropical nation that wishes to save itself.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:39 PM on September 21, 2023
It's also true our society demands the existence of the Wilks. We'll change our society eventually, but likely only when forced to. I doubt politics could change this either, like could they really vote to drop GDP by so much? Yet we need people to try politics so that their failure can make possible more forceful things. I suspect the best case scenario would be other people forcing our society to change, while the worst case would be nature forcing us to.
We're all bad guys in some form or fashion of course, by virtue of living in our society powered by genocide. Yet we mostly do not personally represent legitimate military targets for a tropical nation that wishes to save itself.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:39 PM on September 21, 2023
It's also true our society demands the existence of the Wilks.
I don't think this is true. For one, the Wilks are responsible for creating and nurturing massive propaganda networks, in order to push forward climate change denialism and advance their oil&gas interests. So if there is any demand for the Wilks, it is demand that they have helped create.
More generally, as a species we have a choice between ~100 Holocausts or ~2000 Holocausts. We can advance towards a clean energy future with the tools we have available to us (and have had for years), or we can ride oil&gas down into extinction. The Wilks have used their massive amounts of wealth and agency to push us towards that latter choice. It's a level of evil that is far beyond any average American consumer or oil field worker.
posted by Balna Watya at 10:35 PM on September 21, 2023
I don't think this is true. For one, the Wilks are responsible for creating and nurturing massive propaganda networks, in order to push forward climate change denialism and advance their oil&gas interests. So if there is any demand for the Wilks, it is demand that they have helped create.
More generally, as a species we have a choice between ~100 Holocausts or ~2000 Holocausts. We can advance towards a clean energy future with the tools we have available to us (and have had for years), or we can ride oil&gas down into extinction. The Wilks have used their massive amounts of wealth and agency to push us towards that latter choice. It's a level of evil that is far beyond any average American consumer or oil field worker.
posted by Balna Watya at 10:35 PM on September 21, 2023
Would you consider the Wilks brothers to be bad guys?
They sound like shits, sure. George Mitchell and others (not bad people for the most part) have a much bigger role in the development of the bundle of tight gas and oil extraction techniques commonly known as "fracking" than these guys though.
I don't think that the existence of bad people operating in any particular economic sector has much significance to our shared global future. Nasty people exist, they will broadly do what we collectively allow them to do. The worst individual person I ever worked for was at an offshore wind developer but the state had signalled to him that there was money to be made delivering offshore wind in the UK, so there he was, alongside the non-shitty people, following the direction society had set for us.
Yes, Dan n Farris Wilks have committed the worst crimes imaginable, like everyone else who works in fracking.
Nonsense. Producing a substance that our society continues to rely on, regrettable though that continued reliance may be, is not "the worst crimes imaginable".
We are all collectively still using a lot of gas and oil. If these "worst criminals imaginable" all stopped producing gas and oil products at the same time tomorrow, you and I and they would be stone dead within a year at most.
Why is some rig-hand in rural Texas more of a legitimate target than you or I? I suspect that we are personally closer to powerful people who make decisions than they are.
If it is the case that the only thing which would effectively protect the future of a nation which was threatened by climate change was military action, it would have to be on a strategic targets, effectively threatening a nuclear (style? or actual?) attack to enforce compliance. That would be be on the kind of cities where you and I live, not where some shitkicker truck driver who just about finished high school in a two-donkey-town in Texas lives.
The point is not that these Wilks pricks or whoever aren't bad, it's that the global industrial machine which makes our world go and which turns fossil fuels into CO2 exists as a thing that these people are inside, the same as we are. I flipped from working on big offshore wind projects to nuclear new build, so I'm pretty clear that my professional life is dedicated to removing the need for fossil fuels but that doesn't make me somehow a "good guy" and it doesn't make people working in Saudi Aramco "bad guys". Fossil fuels aren't something that is being inflicted on "us" by the production industry. Fossil fuel emissions are being inflicted on "us" and "them" collectively by "us" where "us" is people who live in the wealthy-ish world and "them" is the two billion or so people who have seen very limited benefits from fossil fuels.
posted by atrazine at 6:02 AM on September 22, 2023
They sound like shits, sure. George Mitchell and others (not bad people for the most part) have a much bigger role in the development of the bundle of tight gas and oil extraction techniques commonly known as "fracking" than these guys though.
I don't think that the existence of bad people operating in any particular economic sector has much significance to our shared global future. Nasty people exist, they will broadly do what we collectively allow them to do. The worst individual person I ever worked for was at an offshore wind developer but the state had signalled to him that there was money to be made delivering offshore wind in the UK, so there he was, alongside the non-shitty people, following the direction society had set for us.
Yes, Dan n Farris Wilks have committed the worst crimes imaginable, like everyone else who works in fracking.
Nonsense. Producing a substance that our society continues to rely on, regrettable though that continued reliance may be, is not "the worst crimes imaginable".
We are all collectively still using a lot of gas and oil. If these "worst criminals imaginable" all stopped producing gas and oil products at the same time tomorrow, you and I and they would be stone dead within a year at most.
Why is some rig-hand in rural Texas more of a legitimate target than you or I? I suspect that we are personally closer to powerful people who make decisions than they are.
If it is the case that the only thing which would effectively protect the future of a nation which was threatened by climate change was military action, it would have to be on a strategic targets, effectively threatening a nuclear (style? or actual?) attack to enforce compliance. That would be be on the kind of cities where you and I live, not where some shitkicker truck driver who just about finished high school in a two-donkey-town in Texas lives.
The point is not that these Wilks pricks or whoever aren't bad, it's that the global industrial machine which makes our world go and which turns fossil fuels into CO2 exists as a thing that these people are inside, the same as we are. I flipped from working on big offshore wind projects to nuclear new build, so I'm pretty clear that my professional life is dedicated to removing the need for fossil fuels but that doesn't make me somehow a "good guy" and it doesn't make people working in Saudi Aramco "bad guys". Fossil fuels aren't something that is being inflicted on "us" by the production industry. Fossil fuel emissions are being inflicted on "us" and "them" collectively by "us" where "us" is people who live in the wealthy-ish world and "them" is the two billion or so people who have seen very limited benefits from fossil fuels.
posted by atrazine at 6:02 AM on September 22, 2023
The Backyard Farmers Who Grow Food With Fog: In one of the world’s driest cities, an ingenious system channels water from the air to those who need it most.
posted by aniola at 9:13 AM on September 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by aniola at 9:13 AM on September 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
Lol. The "bad guys"? Somebody watches too many cartoons or superhero movies, I think.
I do not believe I have a cartoonish or superheroic view of the world. (I'm not fond of superhero movies in general.) I was thinking hard about that descriptor when I wrote it. I try to keep my text varied, and it seemed appropriate. I was trying not to say "Republicans," or "the right," which what I wanted to say, for overuse. They are among the ones who should be blamed, they're the ones who shield industry and enable them to keep polluting. The companies are awful but continue acting this way because it's economically viable, and that's because their regulation and enforcement has been lacking. But then their lobbying is why the Republicans can keep doing this, and their misinformation campaigns are why the public has a terrible view of the issue.
So, I identified the groups as "bad guys." It's descriptive at least, and is only seven letters long. Maybe they're not all male though, although a great majority of them probably are.
posted by JHarris at 7:20 AM on September 23, 2023
I do not believe I have a cartoonish or superheroic view of the world. (I'm not fond of superhero movies in general.) I was thinking hard about that descriptor when I wrote it. I try to keep my text varied, and it seemed appropriate. I was trying not to say "Republicans," or "the right," which what I wanted to say, for overuse. They are among the ones who should be blamed, they're the ones who shield industry and enable them to keep polluting. The companies are awful but continue acting this way because it's economically viable, and that's because their regulation and enforcement has been lacking. But then their lobbying is why the Republicans can keep doing this, and their misinformation campaigns are why the public has a terrible view of the issue.
So, I identified the groups as "bad guys." It's descriptive at least, and is only seven letters long. Maybe they're not all male though, although a great majority of them probably are.
posted by JHarris at 7:20 AM on September 23, 2023
Minnesota judge throws out charges against Line 3 pipeline protesters: Citing a rarely used statute, the court dismissed Line 3 protest charges in the name of climate justice.
posted by aniola at 8:54 AM on September 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by aniola at 8:54 AM on September 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
Fair enough. I just think that as bad as those guys happen to be, their badness is essentially incidental.
Obama was president for eight years with majorities at various times, right? So did he not bother because he's also bad? Climate change has never been doubted by the Chinese leadership (many of them: also bad guys) nor has it been much doubted by political leadership across Europe. Has there been action, sure there has (e.g. UK has more or less halved emissions, Germany and other countries have taken action and all made progress in recent years) but in many cases these have been piece-meal efforts like what has happened in the US and not at the requisite pace.
Until the most recent election, Germany had a 2038 phase-out date for coal. That's not due to badness that's just, well, they have a lot of coal and lignite and they need a lot of energy and they haven't got that many other sources so it's hard. I'm not a huge fan of Angela Merkel but I don't think she was guilty of bad faith either.
posted by atrazine at 7:54 AM on September 25, 2023
Obama was president for eight years with majorities at various times, right? So did he not bother because he's also bad? Climate change has never been doubted by the Chinese leadership (many of them: also bad guys) nor has it been much doubted by political leadership across Europe. Has there been action, sure there has (e.g. UK has more or less halved emissions, Germany and other countries have taken action and all made progress in recent years) but in many cases these have been piece-meal efforts like what has happened in the US and not at the requisite pace.
Until the most recent election, Germany had a 2038 phase-out date for coal. That's not due to badness that's just, well, they have a lot of coal and lignite and they need a lot of energy and they haven't got that many other sources so it's hard. I'm not a huge fan of Angela Merkel but I don't think she was guilty of bad faith either.
posted by atrazine at 7:54 AM on September 25, 2023
It's not that Obama didn't bother. It's easy to look at his presidency in hindsight as a wasted opportunity, but the Republicans hadn't yet adopted their stall-at-all-costs strategy. He only had a majority on his side for two years of his presidency, legislation takes time to draft and enact, and the Democrats are far less of a cohesive body than the Republicans are.
It feels like we're taking up a lot of energy quibbling over a throwaway wording? Yet I still stand by it; the Republicans and their supporters are blatantly the party of evil by this point. But if you want to keep talking about my comment then please, use MeMail or Talk.
posted by JHarris at 12:19 PM on September 25, 2023
It feels like we're taking up a lot of energy quibbling over a throwaway wording? Yet I still stand by it; the Republicans and their supporters are blatantly the party of evil by this point. But if you want to keep talking about my comment then please, use MeMail or Talk.
posted by JHarris at 12:19 PM on September 25, 2023
Sorry to keep necro-ing this thread, but I think there is some important information that A) is lost in atrazine's description of things, and B) that I've been struggling to convey but will go ahead and make a stab at.
I think most of us recognize that our civilization has been built off of fossil fuels, and that for much of our history we did not have viable alternatives to these fuels for most use cases. As atrzine describes. So we're not saying that someone who drilled for oil or coal in the 1950's is bad. Rather the issue is that we now have viable alternatives to fossil fuels and we understand the damage that fossil fuels cause, and so their continued promotion is the bad act. To use an analogy, you can imagine people who are shipwrecked and have to turn to drawing lots and cannibalism in order to survive. I wouldn't describe these people as "bad", rather they faced severe constraints and their actions were forced by their circumstances. This is basically us during the 1800's - ~1970's; we did not have alternatives to fossil fuels and did not fully understand their externalities, and so we used them. We did not have other viable choices back then.
Now imagine that after being rescued, these ship wreck survivors continued to engage in cannibalism, and even promote cannibalism to other people, and create propaganda networks glorifying cannibalism, and bribe politicians to teach school kids to embrace cannibalism, and so on and so forth. This would be bad. And that's the position that the Wilk's brothers have put themselves in; they are spending vast amounts of money to promote infrastructure choices that A) are no longer necessary or efficient (even in the short term) and B) will cause *vast* amounts of death and suffering.
E.g. from the Guardian article, the Wilks brothers spend tens of millions of dollars in bribes to get corrupt Republicans elected in Texas, and then these officials turn around and offer zero interest loans for the construction of new fossil fuel plants:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-house-weighs-senate-approved-plan-to-incentivize-new-gas-plants/649767/
Nobody is forcing the Wilks brothers to do this. They are not being forced to bribe politicians, they are not being forced to fund propaganda networks to support these politicians, and they're not being forced to invest in fossil fuel plants that are so inefficient that they need enormous state subsidies to compete (even when ignoring their externalities). This is enormous damage to the world that is being freely chosen and is not forced by any constraints or special circumstances. I'm not sure how to describe those actions as other than "bad" or "evil".
posted by Balna Watya at 2:45 PM on September 25, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think most of us recognize that our civilization has been built off of fossil fuels, and that for much of our history we did not have viable alternatives to these fuels for most use cases. As atrzine describes. So we're not saying that someone who drilled for oil or coal in the 1950's is bad. Rather the issue is that we now have viable alternatives to fossil fuels and we understand the damage that fossil fuels cause, and so their continued promotion is the bad act. To use an analogy, you can imagine people who are shipwrecked and have to turn to drawing lots and cannibalism in order to survive. I wouldn't describe these people as "bad", rather they faced severe constraints and their actions were forced by their circumstances. This is basically us during the 1800's - ~1970's; we did not have alternatives to fossil fuels and did not fully understand their externalities, and so we used them. We did not have other viable choices back then.
Now imagine that after being rescued, these ship wreck survivors continued to engage in cannibalism, and even promote cannibalism to other people, and create propaganda networks glorifying cannibalism, and bribe politicians to teach school kids to embrace cannibalism, and so on and so forth. This would be bad. And that's the position that the Wilk's brothers have put themselves in; they are spending vast amounts of money to promote infrastructure choices that A) are no longer necessary or efficient (even in the short term) and B) will cause *vast* amounts of death and suffering.
E.g. from the Guardian article, the Wilks brothers spend tens of millions of dollars in bribes to get corrupt Republicans elected in Texas, and then these officials turn around and offer zero interest loans for the construction of new fossil fuel plants:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-house-weighs-senate-approved-plan-to-incentivize-new-gas-plants/649767/
Nobody is forcing the Wilks brothers to do this. They are not being forced to bribe politicians, they are not being forced to fund propaganda networks to support these politicians, and they're not being forced to invest in fossil fuel plants that are so inefficient that they need enormous state subsidies to compete (even when ignoring their externalities). This is enormous damage to the world that is being freely chosen and is not forced by any constraints or special circumstances. I'm not sure how to describe those actions as other than "bad" or "evil".
posted by Balna Watya at 2:45 PM on September 25, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think we've probably exhausted this particular reservoir short of pumping fine sand into it under pressure, but one final thing which perhaps didn't come across in my previous comment, Balna Watya.
Even our most optimistic scenarios for speed of build-out of non-carbon assets means we need to keep using fossil fuels for a few more decades, albeit in hopefully rapidly reducing quantities. What may not be known to everyone is that the lifetime of conventional, let alone tight/"fracked" wells is measured in only a few years. In other words, even in a now-barely-credible 1.5C compatible scenario, we actually need new wells to be drilled until well into the 2030s. I think some people have seen previous IEA pronouncements about not opening up new fields being essential to stay under even 2C but that refers to brand new developments, not to drilling in existing fields.
I'm not saying that the Wilks' or American Republicans aren't bad, sure they are, but I also think that if I was writing a history of climate change in 2100, neither of those factors would really merit more than a footnote in the shape of the global emissions trajectory.
It's not clear to me what you think ERCOT should be doing instead in Texas. Fossil fuel plants are not usually "so inefficient that they need enormous state subsidies to compete" that is a consequence of Texas having a European-style energy-only electricity market. We should celebrate that gas plants now require either subsidies or capacity markets to stack up financially because that is the desirable consequence of increased renewables penetration - the demotion of gas from bulk power production to resilience-only resources that only run occasionally. Hopefully on the way to their replacement in that capacity by a totally non-emitting resource.
posted by atrazine at 7:57 AM on September 26, 2023
Even our most optimistic scenarios for speed of build-out of non-carbon assets means we need to keep using fossil fuels for a few more decades, albeit in hopefully rapidly reducing quantities. What may not be known to everyone is that the lifetime of conventional, let alone tight/"fracked" wells is measured in only a few years. In other words, even in a now-barely-credible 1.5C compatible scenario, we actually need new wells to be drilled until well into the 2030s. I think some people have seen previous IEA pronouncements about not opening up new fields being essential to stay under even 2C but that refers to brand new developments, not to drilling in existing fields.
I'm not saying that the Wilks' or American Republicans aren't bad, sure they are, but I also think that if I was writing a history of climate change in 2100, neither of those factors would really merit more than a footnote in the shape of the global emissions trajectory.
It's not clear to me what you think ERCOT should be doing instead in Texas. Fossil fuel plants are not usually "so inefficient that they need enormous state subsidies to compete" that is a consequence of Texas having a European-style energy-only electricity market. We should celebrate that gas plants now require either subsidies or capacity markets to stack up financially because that is the desirable consequence of increased renewables penetration - the demotion of gas from bulk power production to resilience-only resources that only run occasionally. Hopefully on the way to their replacement in that capacity by a totally non-emitting resource.
posted by atrazine at 7:57 AM on September 26, 2023
California Joins States Suing Big Oil for Its Role in the Climate Crisis: Lawsuit filed against five oil and gas majors and API demands they pay for their decades of deception.
posted by aniola at 10:16 PM on September 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by aniola at 10:16 PM on September 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
As many as eight in 10 brown bear cubs born this year in a remote part of northern Japan have died amid a shortage of salmon, with experts blaming rising sea temperatures caused by the climate crisis.
posted by aniola at 6:19 PM on September 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 6:19 PM on September 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
« Older a drink is quietly mixed by Mixie & a snack is... | Jamie Hyneman & Hydraulic Press Channel Test... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The wheels are coming off. And nobody's talking about it.
posted by notoriety public at 7:51 PM on September 20, 2023 [7 favorites]