Good article, but I disagree with the end. We won't solve this at the ballot box. Half of our leadership denies climate change entirely. Those who recognize it advocate for a Green New Deal, the politically acceptable idea that with renewable energy we don't need to change our consumption habits. We do. We are also coming extremely close to agricultural disaster. When food becomes far more expensive than it is now, which it will soon, millions of people will be in dire trouble for mere daily survival. It will drive economic melt down and social unrest. This before food starts disappearing from shelves. 23 billion dollar climate disasters in the US alone this year, corrupted courts, a senate controlled by the dumbest clowns ever and a very real time element here. We have been voting for the lesser of evils forever. Time up. Time to strike, boycott and hit the streets, risk your life and security. To not risk it in this way is to guarantee losing it.
I like the plot with the fossil-fuel band. Regardless of your beliefs about how fast the world can wean itself off fossil fuels, it will just be a blip on the screen in terms of geological timescales. Emissions from fossil fuels started around 1850 and the endpoint is up to us, say 2100 or 2150 depending on how pessimistic you are, e.g. 250 to 300 years. Not very long but still too long.
Here in New Zealand we have just had a general election. The outgoing government had introduced a range of climate friendly policies including a price on carbon which was recycled into policies that helped people get off fossil fuel addiction.
The new government is throwing all of that on the bonfire.
You lost me in the final paragraph. It felt like you were saying "Don't worry, everything will be fine. We will solve this with a time traveling wildebeest who speaks fluent Mandarin." Our politics is as broken as anything I can point to in our society (and that includes homelessness). Voting won't solve climate change because voting, while important, is only a tiny fraction of the political system function. And that system is dynamically fought over in ways that will take a generation to overcome.
Great analysis, except for the part about solving this at the ballot box. We've been trying to do that for a generation, with very little to show for it, and now we're poised to re-elect a climate denier to the WH. There is no urgency by the electorate... messaging has fallen on deaf ears. How about a scientists march on Congress? Or a mass scientists' walkout? Something radical/unusual that will galvanize public opinion.
I think there is a consensus that the Osman et al. version is probably right and the peak 7,000 years ago is smaller than it appears in this figure. That doesn't change the essential message here.
This is actually my reply to Jeff and his very valid points about The Ballot box, so it is going to be posted on its own:
We better get to The Ballot Box, where and while, we still can and we better have *one* issue in mind in 2024.
There is nothing that anybody on this thread cares about (immigration, abortion, tax policy, Social Services, Healthcare...) will have any hope of being resolved in your favor, if an authoritarian government gets in charge of this country.
It's been said that when the United States sneezes, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. And authoritarians in charge of the United States, would be like a MRSA infection in the lungs!
An authoritarian Administration in the White House, under the command of Donald J Trump, would have a domino effect on democracies all over the world.
Everything in a given country would depend on the whims of the "strong man" in charge. Scare quotes because authoritarians are not truly strong people. They are scared to the point of paranoia that if they are not in charge, they will be revealed as the weaklings they truly are and be destroyed.
As far as the specific topic
of this thread, DJT has already made himself clear about how he feels about the futures of the rest of us: "What do I care about climate change?! I won't be around for it!"
Yes, but approximately zero% of the discussion of what to do to reduce net emissions of CO2 include taxing it. If we do not tax CO2 emissions, we either will not meet the 2 degree target of will do so at enormously higher, growth inhibiting costs. And even if we DO adopt the very best net emissions reduction politics tomorrow, cost of previous emissions will still continue to rise for decades.
In addition to long-term climate reasons for the US to price carbon, there are compelling short-term economic reasons to close the growing carbon price gap between the US and its major trading partners: bit.ly/why-cfd-asap-pdf
The traits that have allowed Homo sapiens to conquer the world will cause our demise. We always want more and politicians promising less of anything except taxes are unlikely to be elected.
Are you sure your citation for the plot is correct? I'm looking at the Clark article, including the supplementary information, and seeing only plots of CO2 and sea level, not temperature. I'd like to show your plot to my students but I'd need to be sure I can defend it if challenged.
I also disagree with the end, which sounds like magical thinking. The technology we have includes nuclear, but climate activists won't allow it despite claiming we have an existential crisis. If that's true, arbitrarily taking the most productive zero-emissions electricity generating technology off the table looks like suicide. So does their proposal for a mostly renewables + batteries grid. Around the country transmission operators are warning that decommissioning of reliable high-performing power plants (hydro, nuclear and fossil fuel) without replacing them power sources with the same attributes will result in blackouts (which kill people). Because renewables are not reliable or high performing (they generate about 25-30% of their design capacity, compared to 95-99% for nuclear), they must be overbuilt and even then fast-starting backup power fueled generally by natural gas is still needed for days without wind or much solar. Long-duration energy storage is not commercially available. And the latest report on tax expenditures from the U.S. Treasury shows that wind and solar need about 20 times more tax relief than all fossil fuels combined. We have electric grids designed for baseload power that renewables cannot provide. We'll spend unsustainable amounts for wind and solar and we'll get a less reliable grid.
The last time 4 TRILLON tons of CO2 was added to the atmosphere, (by a rift volcano, stretching across most of Eurasia) 98% of all living things in the oceans perished. Along with 75% of all terrestrial critters. We now know it is "the Great Dying," the worst of the five previous mass extinction events.
In the last 200 years we're just shy of adding 4 trillion tons CO2. "We" meaning Homo sapiens.
To say the sixth great mass extinction we are smack dab in the middle of, will cause 75% loss of all species and life forms on Gaia, would be foolishly understated.
Good article, but I disagree with the end. We won't solve this at the ballot box. Half of our leadership denies climate change entirely. Those who recognize it advocate for a Green New Deal, the politically acceptable idea that with renewable energy we don't need to change our consumption habits. We do. We are also coming extremely close to agricultural disaster. When food becomes far more expensive than it is now, which it will soon, millions of people will be in dire trouble for mere daily survival. It will drive economic melt down and social unrest. This before food starts disappearing from shelves. 23 billion dollar climate disasters in the US alone this year, corrupted courts, a senate controlled by the dumbest clowns ever and a very real time element here. We have been voting for the lesser of evils forever. Time up. Time to strike, boycott and hit the streets, risk your life and security. To not risk it in this way is to guarantee losing it.
Brava!!!
I always refer people to this XKCD plot. Stretching out the time axis really helps clarify the issue! https://xkcd.com/1732/
Wow - great but humbling tool to use next time someone tries to argue that this is a natural aberration in global temperatures...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356606430_Review_of_Climate_Change_Impacts_on_Human_Environment_Past_Present_and_Future_Projections
And it started 5000 years ago by mans first agricultural inputs. Prevented a new ice age actually
I like the plot with the fossil-fuel band. Regardless of your beliefs about how fast the world can wean itself off fossil fuels, it will just be a blip on the screen in terms of geological timescales. Emissions from fossil fuels started around 1850 and the endpoint is up to us, say 2100 or 2150 depending on how pessimistic you are, e.g. 250 to 300 years. Not very long but still too long.
"solve at the ballot box."
Here in New Zealand we have just had a general election. The outgoing government had introduced a range of climate friendly policies including a price on carbon which was recycled into policies that helped people get off fossil fuel addiction.
The new government is throwing all of that on the bonfire.
Are we screwed ?
You lost me in the final paragraph. It felt like you were saying "Don't worry, everything will be fine. We will solve this with a time traveling wildebeest who speaks fluent Mandarin." Our politics is as broken as anything I can point to in our society (and that includes homelessness). Voting won't solve climate change because voting, while important, is only a tiny fraction of the political system function. And that system is dynamically fought over in ways that will take a generation to overcome.
Great analysis, except for the part about solving this at the ballot box. We've been trying to do that for a generation, with very little to show for it, and now we're poised to re-elect a climate denier to the WH. There is no urgency by the electorate... messaging has fallen on deaf ears. How about a scientists march on Congress? Or a mass scientists' walkout? Something radical/unusual that will galvanize public opinion.
As long as we are looking at the "hockey stick," any thoughts on whether there is movement or discussion about adopting the flatter version proposed by Osman and Tierney et al. as the consensus version? https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/scientists-extend-and-straighten-iconic-climate-hockey-stick/
I think there is a consensus that the Osman et al. version is probably right and the peak 7,000 years ago is smaller than it appears in this figure. That doesn't change the essential message here.
Absolutely agree! Thanks for responding.
The Climate Brink
This is actually my reply to Jeff and his very valid points about The Ballot box, so it is going to be posted on its own:
We better get to The Ballot Box, where and while, we still can and we better have *one* issue in mind in 2024.
There is nothing that anybody on this thread cares about (immigration, abortion, tax policy, Social Services, Healthcare...) will have any hope of being resolved in your favor, if an authoritarian government gets in charge of this country.
It's been said that when the United States sneezes, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. And authoritarians in charge of the United States, would be like a MRSA infection in the lungs!
An authoritarian Administration in the White House, under the command of Donald J Trump, would have a domino effect on democracies all over the world.
Everything in a given country would depend on the whims of the "strong man" in charge. Scare quotes because authoritarians are not truly strong people. They are scared to the point of paranoia that if they are not in charge, they will be revealed as the weaklings they truly are and be destroyed.
As far as the specific topic
of this thread, DJT has already made himself clear about how he feels about the futures of the rest of us: "What do I care about climate change?! I won't be around for it!"
And here we are!
Yes, but approximately zero% of the discussion of what to do to reduce net emissions of CO2 include taxing it. If we do not tax CO2 emissions, we either will not meet the 2 degree target of will do so at enormously higher, growth inhibiting costs. And even if we DO adopt the very best net emissions reduction politics tomorrow, cost of previous emissions will still continue to rise for decades.
In addition to long-term climate reasons for the US to price carbon, there are compelling short-term economic reasons to close the growing carbon price gap between the US and its major trading partners: bit.ly/why-cfd-asap-pdf
The traits that have allowed Homo sapiens to conquer the world will cause our demise. We always want more and politicians promising less of anything except taxes are unlikely to be elected.
Are you sure your citation for the plot is correct? I'm looking at the Clark article, including the supplementary information, and seeing only plots of CO2 and sea level, not temperature. I'd like to show your plot to my students but I'd need to be sure I can defend it if challenged.
Figure 1c shows temperature plots for various scenarios.
Ah, thanks. Missed that right axis!
I very much like the very big picture framing here.
I also disagree with the end, which sounds like magical thinking. The technology we have includes nuclear, but climate activists won't allow it despite claiming we have an existential crisis. If that's true, arbitrarily taking the most productive zero-emissions electricity generating technology off the table looks like suicide. So does their proposal for a mostly renewables + batteries grid. Around the country transmission operators are warning that decommissioning of reliable high-performing power plants (hydro, nuclear and fossil fuel) without replacing them power sources with the same attributes will result in blackouts (which kill people). Because renewables are not reliable or high performing (they generate about 25-30% of their design capacity, compared to 95-99% for nuclear), they must be overbuilt and even then fast-starting backup power fueled generally by natural gas is still needed for days without wind or much solar. Long-duration energy storage is not commercially available. And the latest report on tax expenditures from the U.S. Treasury shows that wind and solar need about 20 times more tax relief than all fossil fuels combined. We have electric grids designed for baseload power that renewables cannot provide. We'll spend unsustainable amounts for wind and solar and we'll get a less reliable grid.
The last time 4 TRILLON tons of CO2 was added to the atmosphere, (by a rift volcano, stretching across most of Eurasia) 98% of all living things in the oceans perished. Along with 75% of all terrestrial critters. We now know it is "the Great Dying," the worst of the five previous mass extinction events.
In the last 200 years we're just shy of adding 4 trillion tons CO2. "We" meaning Homo sapiens.
To say the sixth great mass extinction we are smack dab in the middle of, will cause 75% loss of all species and life forms on Gaia, would be foolishly understated.
whaaaaaaaaaaaat the fuck you go from burgeoning awareness of the end of the holocene to 'vote!' surely you can't be serious