We don't need to emit carbon to live the lives the developed world lives today. The whole of the earth's population can live at our standard of living and emit no carbon.
For everything we do, we can develop and scale technologies to substitute carbon emitting tech for clean tech. We can fight desertification, and restore habitats. Arguments against this usually boil down to "Well, it hasn't happened yet, so it can't happen and it won't happen".
But it will, though it won't be easy. As Covid vaccinations show, there's really nothing in the world that would make everyone do the simple, sensible thing, so we'll stumble forward, but we'll get there.
The no-carbon and current lifestyle does not seem doable IMO. Electric planes are not happening any time soon due to weight of the batteries. Container ships still burn worst type of fuel even in 2021. Our lifestyle crucially depends on logistics of air and ship travel. And these are not catching up.
Roads won't be free of ICE cars for 30 more years at least and make that 50+ for the 3rd world countries.
Energy generation with solar panels and wind turbines is not stable. Only long-term solution is nuclear so that our children in 20 years breath less coal-burn exhausts.
It will probably happen eventually but we will live through a lot of weather related suffering until then. Thank you previous generations.
Yes, the global cost function of standard of living may likely have other comparable optimimums at other points in parameter-space (which may be less damaging to the planet).
The question is whether we can move around in parameter-space to reach another optimum, without having to transition trough rather sub-optimal areas of the cost-function for some time.
We may be caught in some local minimum, without society having enough "energy" to climb out of it.
Arguments against this usually boil down to "Well, it hasn't happened yet, so it can't happen and it won't happen".
Arguments for this usually boil down to "Well it hasn't happened yet, but it's only a matter of time before technology without current expression/science that doesn't yet exist/a miracle occurs and it inevitably, without doubt, happens."
There is no such thing as simple and sensible when it comes to climate change. Let's say meat and soy farming gets banned. Lots of jobs lost. Economic recession incoming. Politicians lose voters.
Changes in liberal democracy happen very slowly as it takes time for information and belief to propagate to all voters and decision makers. Take for example marijuana legalization. It took it decades of lobbying.
The timescale of such a change in policy is also reflected in the markets as well. Consider money printinting, inflation, interest rates, etc. All these rarely make huge differences over night.
Psychology of the masses is hard to predict and influence as the timescale gets smaller. It took Hitler around 15 years to become a chancellor of Germany after joining the DAP after WW1.
Nothing happens overnight and nothing is simple and sensible.
I personally don't see any fast way except ecodictatorship. The urge to take the path of least resistance and most short term joy is just too strong when there is no overseer to punish us for it. But who will control the controller? The core issue of all forms of autocracy. Perhaps AGI, if reached, would also be our saviour here.
Comments
We don't need to emit carbon to live the lives the developed world lives today. The whole of the earth's population can live at our standard of living and emit no carbon.
For everything we do, we can develop and scale technologies to substitute carbon emitting tech for clean tech. We can fight desertification, and restore habitats. Arguments against this usually boil down to "Well, it hasn't happened yet, so it can't happen and it won't happen".
But it will, though it won't be easy. As Covid vaccinations show, there's really nothing in the world that would make everyone do the simple, sensible thing, so we'll stumble forward, but we'll get there.
The no-carbon and current lifestyle does not seem doable IMO. Electric planes are not happening any time soon due to weight of the batteries. Container ships still burn worst type of fuel even in 2021. Our lifestyle crucially depends on logistics of air and ship travel. And these are not catching up.
Roads won't be free of ICE cars for 30 more years at least and make that 50+ for the 3rd world countries.
Energy generation with solar panels and wind turbines is not stable. Only long-term solution is nuclear so that our children in 20 years breath less coal-burn exhausts.
It will probably happen eventually but we will live through a lot of weather related suffering until then. Thank you previous generations.
Yes, the global cost function of standard of living may likely have other comparable optimimums at other points in parameter-space (which may be less damaging to the planet).
The question is whether we can move around in parameter-space to reach another optimum, without having to transition trough rather sub-optimal areas of the cost-function for some time.
We may be caught in some local minimum, without society having enough "energy" to climb out of it.
Arguments against this usually boil down to "Well, it hasn't happened yet, so it can't happen and it won't happen".
Arguments for this usually boil down to "Well it hasn't happened yet, but it's only a matter of time before technology without current expression/science that doesn't yet exist/a miracle occurs and it inevitably, without doubt, happens."
Both stupid arguments.
There is no such thing as simple and sensible when it comes to climate change. Let's say meat and soy farming gets banned. Lots of jobs lost. Economic recession incoming. Politicians lose voters.
Changes in liberal democracy happen very slowly as it takes time for information and belief to propagate to all voters and decision makers. Take for example marijuana legalization. It took it decades of lobbying.
The timescale of such a change in policy is also reflected in the markets as well. Consider money printinting, inflation, interest rates, etc. All these rarely make huge differences over night.
Psychology of the masses is hard to predict and influence as the timescale gets smaller. It took Hitler around 15 years to become a chancellor of Germany after joining the DAP after WW1.
Nothing happens overnight and nothing is simple and sensible.
I personally don't see any fast way except ecodictatorship. The urge to take the path of least resistance and most short term joy is just too strong when there is no overseer to punish us for it. But who will control the controller? The core issue of all forms of autocracy. Perhaps AGI, if reached, would also be our saviour here.