"Whether we like it or not" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15187442
"Could we (should we?) look to technological solutions to our climate crisis, too?


This is the question posed by Holly Jean Buck in her 2019 book After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration. Zooming with me from Buffalo, New York, where she’s a professor of environment at the University of Buffalo, Buck is blunt in her assessment. The pace of climate change, and the insufficiency of humanity’s current response, have effectively already made the choice for us: mankind will have to engage in some kind of “geoengineering” – an umbrella term for various methods of intentional, planetary-scale climate intervention – whether we like it or not.

"It’s clear that we need to remove some amount of carbon from the atmosphere.”

How much? “Hundreds of billions of gigatons,” Buck says. “We have emitted so much, and now we have so much legacy carbon. The challenge isn’t just cutting emissions.” The second challenge is “removing the carbon that’s up there. It’s this massive cleanup operation that we need to undertake this century.”

Been saying that for years.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/26/planet-earth-climate-crisis-geoengineering
#15187486
The standard critique of climate engineering is that it will inevitably be used as a substitute for tackling emissions from fossil fuel burning. There's a well-founded fear that the politically easy technological solution will take precedence over other avenues.

Nevertheless, you are correct. In a very few years, we are going to suffer unexpectedly rapid consequences of climate homeostasis breakdown (actually already in progress).

The glib references of politicians to the "existential threat" of climate change will become all too real.

We are a few decades too late for traditional market oriented incrementalism to save the day. Zizek predicts that nation states will soon be forced into a kind of WWII "war communism" with desperate measures being the order of the day.
#15187536
Why the f**k is rationing off the table?
It worked fine in WWII, it will work fine now.
Soviet Communism tried to plan production. This failed because of unimtended consequences of the planning of the production.
Rationing does it from the other direction. It cuts the demand.
It pretty much caps the demand, although there may be some black market stuff sold.
The rich can buy ration coupons, too.

IMHO, given where we are now because of past decisions to do nothing, rationing is the only thing that will work enough to save civilization. And yes, I favor geoengineering. But sending stuff to space seems like it uses too much energy (CO2) to be worth it, unless we can build an actual elevator to orbit.
IMHO, we also need to limit people to 1 child each. This is 2 per couple. And, we could let adults over 24 y.o. sell their 1 possible child for cash (a min. of $50K by law). The Gov. could even buy them to reduce pop. growth some more.

Yes, these are radical changes. IMHO, we need to get radical NOW.
Will we? I really doubt it.
.
#15187565
Steve_American wrote:Why the f**k is rationing off the table?
It worked fine in WWII, it will work fine now.
Soviet Communism tried to plan production. This failed because of unimtended consequences of the planning of the production.
Rationing does it from the other direction. It cuts the demand.
It pretty much caps the demand, although there may be some black market stuff sold.
The rich can buy ration coupons, too.

IMHO, given where we are now because of past decisions to do nothing, rationing is the only thing that will work enough to save civilization. And yes, I favor geoengineering. But sending stuff to space seems like it uses too much energy (CO2) to be worth it, unless we can build an actual elevator to orbit.
IMHO, we also need to limit people to 1 child each. This is 2 per couple. And, we could let adults over 24 y.o. sell their 1 possible child for cash (a min. of $50K by law). The Gov. could even buy them to reduce pop. growth some more.

Yes, these are radical changes. IMHO, we need to get radical NOW.
Will we? I really doubt it.
.

Image
An excellent idea, comrade! I knew you would see the light some day. :up:
#15187569
Steve_American wrote:Why the f**k is rationing off the table?
It worked fine in WWII, it will work fine now.
Soviet Communism tried to plan production. This failed because of unimtended consequences of the planning of the production.


Production always has unintended consequences. Capitalism solves this problem nicely by simply declaring that it isn't one.
#15187619
Steve_American wrote:
Why the f**k is rationing off the table?
It worked fine in WWII, it will work fine now.



Rationing is for emergencies. It's a terrible idea you save for when it's the least worst.. Nixon tried it, it was horrible.
#15187624
There's been millions of engines pumping GHG into the air all day every day for the last 100 years, gonna take quite the machine and quite the amount of time to take it out.
#15187630
Steve_American wrote:
Why the f**k is rationing off the table?
It worked fine in WWII, it will work fine now.



As late notes, the use of rationing is (an economic) move of *desperation* -- there's no reason to want to employ it if one doesn't *have* to, because it means the *lowering* of everyone's standard of living.

Moreover 'rationing' is *absurd* in this, the 21st century where computerized automated mass industrial productivity is *so* through-the-roof that prices have barely *budged* (in the U.S.) for *years* now. We've been seeing the *opposite* of the feared 'hyper-inflation' -- this is *deflation*.


Steve_American wrote:
Soviet Communism tried to plan production. This failed because of unimtended consequences of the planning of the production.
Rationing does it from the other direction. It cuts the demand.
It pretty much caps the demand, although there may be some black market stuff sold.
The rich can buy ration coupons, too.



So it would be an economic *fad*, then.


Steve_American wrote:
IMHO, given where we are now because of past decisions to do nothing, rationing is the only thing that will work enough to save civilization. And yes, I favor geoengineering. But sending stuff to space seems like it uses too much energy (CO2) to be worth it, unless we can build an actual elevator to orbit.
IMHO, we also need to limit people to 1 child each. This is 2 per couple. And, we could let adults over 24 y.o. sell their 1 possible child for cash (a min. of $50K by law). The Gov. could even buy them to reduce pop. growth some more.

Yes, these are radical changes. IMHO, we need to get radical NOW.
Will we? I really doubt it.
.



We could also just build, like, *huge* monuments, larger than the *Washington* Monument, of just like *hundred-dollar bills*. Booyah.
#15187634
late wrote:Rationing is for emergencies. It's a terrible idea you save for when it's the least worst.. Nixon tried it, it was horrible.

Late, if you don't think we are in an emergency, then you don't realize what the situation really is.

Nixon didn't issue ration coupons. Yes, he made a mess, because he didn't do it right.
Today we don't need paper coupons, we can use ration cards, like credit cards that access you "ration account". This account has many catagories, like tires, gas/fuel, meat, beef, grains, vegtables/fruit, etc., etc.
.
#15187661
Steve_American wrote:
Late, if you don't think we are in an emergency, then you don't realize what the situation really is.

Nixon didn't issue ration coupons. Yes, he made a mess, because he didn't do it right.
Today we don't need paper coupons, we can use ration cards, like credit cards that access you "ration account". This account has many catagories, like tires, gas/fuel, meat, beef, grains, vegtables/fruit, etc., etc.



This is a carrot and stick problem. Except you want to replace the stick with a lead pipe...

What we need is an incremental Carbon Tax. "If you want to change behavior, change the price."
#15187716
With respect, you can't solve market-caused crises with market solutions. This might have worked had it been seriously implemented decades ago. But the available time to avert irreversible damage is contracting way too fast. Not a serious approach to a serious problem.
#15187723
quetzalcoatl wrote:
With respect, you can't solve market-caused crises with market solutions. This might have worked had it been seriously implemented decades ago. But the available time to avert irreversible damage is contracting way too fast. Not a serious approach to a serious problem.




The scope of the disasters also exposes the bankruptcy of capitalism and its complete inability to deal in any meaningful way with the ongoing climate crisis.

In a 1982 internal memo that was “given wide circulation to Exxon management,” it was made clear that global temperatures would increase sharply as more CO2 was released into the atmosphere. The memo at the time predicted an increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases and global temperatures seen today and also predicted that global temperatures would exceed an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius before the middle of this century and 2 degrees Celsius sometime around 2060.

[...]

More recently, the 2017 Carbon Majors report showed that just 100 corporations worldwide now produce about 90 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions each year, and are responsible about half of all greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity since the industrial revolution. That same presentation also noted that if the trend in fossil fuel extraction and release continues for the next quarter century, global average temperatures would be on track to reach an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... s-a23.html
#15187777
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere isn't controversial. The controversial ideas involve adding new gases to the air or liquids to the sea in an attempt to cool the atmosphere with scary side effects.
#15187779
AFAIK wrote:
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere isn't controversial. The controversial ideas involve adding new gases to the air or liquids to the sea in an attempt to cool the atmosphere with scary side effects.



Yeah, not with the technorati myself, so....
#15187780
-Promotes the preservation of earth's biosphere, advocates for a habitable world, presumably for our children and their children's children.
-gives children experimental gene therapy

All so tiresome. Fuck this planet. It is here to be used and abused, like you are. We will consume it - down to the iron rich core. You will not be able to stop this. We are a virus and we will go galactic.
#15187781
Igor Antunov wrote:
-Promotes the preservation of earth's biosphere, advocates for a habitable world, presumably for our children and their children's children.
-gives children experimental gene therapy

All so tiresome. Fuck this planet. It is here to be used and abused, like you are. We will consume it - down to the iron rich core. You will not be able to stop this. We are a virus and we will go galactic.



You're the guy who does the writing for the books' back cover -- am I right -- ?


= D
#15187801
late wrote:This is a carrot and stick problem. Except you want to replace the stick with a lead pipe...

What we need is an incremental Carbon Tax. "If you want to change behavior, change the price."

No! No! No!

Will any carbon tax the poor can pay be enough to change the behavior of the rich to keep them from living as they choose? No!

IIRC, a recent report says that 90% of CO2 emmisions world wide are released by less than 100 corps.

Will any carbon tax the poor can pay be enough to change their pursuit of profit? No!

So, a carbon tax is not going to alter behavior enough.

Not enough, if the very recent IPCC report is correct.

Well maybe the tax could be enough if the American (here all adults, it's a UBI) were given a tax free $10K / month UBI. But, that amounts to $25 trillion a year in UBI. This size UBI is a silly thoought. What about the rest of the world?! Can they be given a UBI also? Of course not.!
.
#15187802
I proposed 'rationing'.
I would not be opposed in the US for the rich to get double the ration of everthing.
The upper middle class get 1.5 of what everyone else gets.
And 80% getting all the same.

These numbers would IMO still work to reduce equivelent CO2 emmissions enough, fast enough.

Will it happen? IMO, there is a 99% probability of no, and 1% of yes.
.
#15187812
Steve_American wrote:
No! No! No!

Will any carbon tax the poor can pay be enough to change the behavior of the rich to keep them from living as they choose? No!

IIRC, a recent report says that 90% of CO2 emissions world wide are released by less than 100 corps.

Will any carbon tax the poor can pay be enough to change their pursuit of profit? No!

So, a carbon tax is not going to alter behavior enough.

Not enough, if the very recent IPCC report is correct.

Well maybe the tax could be enough if the American (here all adults, it's a UBI) were given a tax free $10K / month UBI. But, that amounts to $25 trillion a year in UBI. This size UBI is a silly thoought. What about the rest of the world?! Can they be given a UBI also? Of course not.!



How much will the average poor person spend in a month on gas? It's not much.

You're running away from the obvious... If Progressives have enough power to do a Carbon Tax, they will be expanding health care, and doing other things to help the poor. The lives of most of them will get better.

Business is *very* price sensitive. They'll see the handwriting on the wall, and come up with a plan that will save them money.

You're rehashing BS from a generation ago.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 37

Unfortunately, the victim has to go to jail. I[…]

He's paid by the word, all you guys are doing is h[…]

They have boats. This is US arrogance from you.[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

So what vaccine did you get Qatz?