24
votes
The Brutal Truth About Climate Change: William T. Vollmann’s latest opus is brilliant, but it offers no comfort to its readers
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- The Most Honest Book About Climate Change Yet
- Authors
- Published
- Sep 9 2018
Good read, thanks for sharing. Sounds like an interesting book! Although...
I think no matter how bleak the future looks, we should try to make a difference. Trying to save the world is as much part of human nature as destroying it stupidly.
I think a good first step would be to stop acting as if nothing was happening. I never cease to be amazed at my own capacity of reading horrible things about climate change and then going on with my life as usual. Not sure what to do exactly though.
This is just plain dumb. I find that type of defeatism criminally frustrating. The amount of R&D and true sci-fi level crap that we do to extract oil is dumbfounding. Off-shore oil rigs are marvels of engineering, and there are many of them. We could put a similar amount of effort into something like a solar shade at L1 - that’s a really old design btw. Yes, that is science fiction at this point, but so was extraction of oil from 18,000 feet below sea level, 30 years ago.
The solar shade is looking more and more doable all the time with reductions in launch costs. All it needs to do is block around one percent of the sunlight hitting earth for a couple hundred years until we get this mess sorted out and transitioned over to renewables and nuclear power. It's always interesting to think about this in terms of Iraq War units. One Iraq War would pay for the solar shade, or several manned Mars missions. Apparently we'd rather bomb brown people than clean up our mess or explore the solar system.
There are plenty of solutions on the table for all of climate change's existential threats. People calling it a doomsday scenario suffer from a lack of imagination or perhaps they aren't up to date on all the relevant tech. Really, the 'extreme weather' portion of the climate shift is the only problem we haven't got a solution ready for yet. Surviving that simply means getting the hell out of weather's way.
Energy shortages? Never gonna happen. Food shortages? Never gonna happen. Water shortages? Never gonna happen. In fact, the denser the population in smaller areas the better all of these technologies work.
All of this climate doomsaying gets a bit tiresome, really. I've been starting to look at climate change as a good thing, perhaps even a great thing. We've been far too complacent for far too long sitting on our asses looking at porn, cat pictures, and celebrity gossip while ignoring the shit going down outside of our homes and own narrow corners of the world. When this train rolls in to fuck shit up, for everyone, everywhere - that's the end of that lifestyle.
A global threat of this scale has the potential to bring us all back to reality and compel us to move beyond the profit motive, and work together like never before. It can snap us back to focusing on things that really matter, things that simply put aren't 'on a screen.' Eventually it'll either compel us to overcome it or leave Earth, and if we're too stupid to get our shit together long enough to do that, frankly, we don't deserve to move beyond Earth in the first place.
I agree with your point here, but I think saying that it's "not for lack of tech" might be a stretch. Are you saying there are situations where there's no piece of tech that could have possibly been developed to prevent said situations?
As far as I understand, the Flint crisis was caused by a lack of proper piping technology. And the solution will lie in rectifying that technological deficiency... Am I missing something?
Yeah I see what you're saying; The forces holding up he problem in Flint are/will inevitably hold up our reactions to climate change and it's effects, even if the solutions are within our reach.
That only holds until there's enough real economic damage that it becomes too expensive to ignore the problem. Then those forces reverse and push the other way, accelerating the solutions. We're seeing this beginning already with the green revolution.
Keep your eye open for these kinds of events...
Those events have price tags that make fixing the 'problems' start to look cheap by comparison. That's when the market goes from holding things back to pushing them forward. Markets frankly suck at preparing for the future, and that's the problem. Markets (and most people) are overly focused on short-term thinking. They don't react until there's enough damage to justify an economic reaction. We don't have enough damage yet to move past the bullshit 'debate' on climate change into doing something about it. What happened in Puerto Rico is a preview of coming attractions.
Flint's crisis can be traced back to corruption and gross incompetence in the government. That situation was quite manageable, if everyone hadn't put their heads in the sand and later tried playing the blame game instead of just fixing things.
Flint's problems will be sorted by 2020 anyway.
Excepting the long term developmental setbacks in the impacted youth in Flint, I'd agree that the crisis will be managed by 2020. Trust in the local government is likely to take a good deal longer before it returns, if it returns for those who were impacted.
I never said the transition period wouldn't be a shitshow. ;)
The naive ones are the people who think humanity is going to be wiped out. We already have the tech to survive Earth becoming a desert planet, so that's off the table.
It'll likely be into the hundreds of millions. That'll be the price we end up paying. Let's hope the lesson sticks and we get wiser in the future. I'm less worried about the loss of species, as long as we get their DNA on file so we can use it in the future. We can always bring them back, once the planet's recovering - or once we find another suitable one.
I wouldn't be so nonchalant about the loss of species. Even if we've got genetic samples, there's still socialization that we can't necessarily provide. That's why, even for species that still exist in captivity, reintroduction programs don't always work out.
It's certainly possible for humanity to wipe itself out fighting for consumption levels of the American Dream (tm).
Even if we avoid that centralized technological infrastructure required to live could easily lock us into some kind of techno-feudalism.
It does seem to me that we need serious attempt at regeneration of our civic institutions in the west.
I think that's in the cards. It's the cycle of history, and we should see things starting to turn around over the next two decades. The younger generation is an angry generation, and that's excellent news. Anger is exactly what we need to get things rolling.
Most people living in large cities has the potential make democratic government easier as well, it doesn't have to descend into feudalism.
Just because we have the tech to do it doesn't mean we'll apply it in time. I don't think humanity will be totally wiped out, but I think hundreds of millions of deaths is completely possible.
Not to mention that we have never tested such tech on a large-scale. I'm sure many unknowns remain.
Not many, really. Nuclear power is the big one, and there are many options there, all of which are being pursued aggressively right now by multiple countries. What we really need is for one of these nuclear projects to win out, go big, and reach large-scale commercial deployment capability. That's the biggest bottleneck at the moment. Once that tech is ready for prime time, it enables all of the others by making their energy requirements less daunting.
The projected timescale for realizing the potential of Thorium fueled reactors is ten to twenty years. Resolving the complexities of the chemical plant maintaining the fuel is the chief hurdle. China's got two billion invested in this already with a staff of several hundred PhDs working on the project. They've been at it for almost five years at that scale. Lockheed's also claiming to have cracked fusion, but I remain skeptical until I see a working prototype.
Once nuclear Gen-IV bears fruit we'll have the power we need to make indoor farming and desalinated water and electrical engines (all of which are already mature technologies) out-compete their older more traditional counterparts. That sets us free from land-based farming, ocean over-fishing, and using fossil fuels for engines. It's the pivot point to a fully carbon-neutral economy.
I'm glad you said this. It really is an opportunity for global unity. It has often been said that it would take an external global threat to unify humanity.
Well climate change is not an external threat, but it is a global and existential threat if nothing is done. This is an opportunity for global unity.
The speech almost writes itself:
I stand before you today to discuss a problem which now all sides agree exists. A problem so large that many among us feel that it is insurmountable. But nothing is insurmountable when faced with indomitable human spirit, ability to innovate and adapt.
We can't waste time laying the blame on who was responsible for this impeding disaster, and we all benefited from the carbon economy. This is not the time for blame. This is not the time for special interest bickering. This is the time for action. This is a problem that all nations, and all citizens will face equally. Doing nothing could mean the end of life as we know it. Based on the work of a global multi-partisan blue ribbon panel we have decided that the following actions will be carried out:
note: the bullet points are just ideas, I ain't no blue ribbon panel. But you get the idea. And we are going to have to pay off Russia.
edit: phrasing
Saving the ecosystem means reducing our footprint. We don't need carbon sequestration facilities as much as we need to just stop raping the land everywhere we live. Let the forests make a comeback. Let large-scale wild animal herds make a comeback. Stop farming in the open under the sun and damaging the land. Stop fishing the oceans to death. Bring it all inside, which makes for larger production volume and better quality in the food produced.
Trees are nature's carbon scrubber. Carbon dioxide isn't poison to them, it's dinner. They mostly come out of the air, not the ground. If we make a conscious effort to restore forests, insect populations, and animal herds we can turn this around and reverse desertification. Drop seed bombs, not nukes. The tech we made to kill each other can be adapted for better purposes. :)
Well one is a technological solution that companies can make money on, given the proper incentives.. the other is a complete change in economics. Both please, however... Natural resource exploitation is probably one of the first sectors of the economy going back into prehistoric times, before any kind of real economy even existed. Exploiting the Earth is just what we did. Vikings deforested Iceland long ago, England was once covered in old growth forest as well. Though I hate to admit it, natural resource exploitation is as human as anything is. We do need to figure out how to calculate and include the externalized costs of resource exploitation though. This includes the cost to future generations. But I feel like going fully electric and building a solar shade are actually simpler problems to solve in some ways. There is precedent for changing humanity's transportation economy in 50 years. Horses -> coal trains -> ICE automobiles and even airplanes all happened in 50 years. I don't know of any similar precedent in the change of fundamental economics, like getting rid of natural resource exploitation.
The true costs of natural resource exploitation have now come up against the fact that we have run out of new resources, and our exploitation of carbon has changed the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere. They are both major problems, and are obviously linked. They actually require similar mechanisms to be fixed, for example a functional U.N. with enforcement teeth to kick countries which go rogue out of the banking system. Personally, I feel that the doomsday scenarios which catastrophic climate change entails will finally create the global regulatory system necessary to address other natural resource issues.
We need the pain to grow. That's how it's always been. Every so often, nature comes along and kicks us in the teeth. At the end of the day, that's a good thing. We need those challenges to overcome, we need to suffer for our mistakes so we learn not to do those things anymore. That's the path to wisdom. Suffering is good for the soul, after all.
We've got to get beyond capitalism. It'll always reward those who exploit in the short term. It'll always fail to position itself well for events that we know will arrive more than a decade or two in the future. I often wonder if science will start to make a comeback in the court of public opinion once climate change vindicates the scientists who have been warning us about it for half a century... and provides us with the tools to beat the problems. If humanity comes out of this mess with a greater respect for knowledge and a more long-term mindset for the future, it'll have been worth it in my opinion.
The numbers I've heard are more like one Iraq war would pay for 100 solar shades. That war was fucking expensive.
We aren't going to get to real climate change progress through giving up anything. It's not really in our nature. The good news is, we don't need to give up anything at all if we get our shit together. We just need to change how we produce power, food, and water for mass consumption. I honestly see this 'give up your carbon-based lifestyle' bullshit as one of the impediments to progress on climate change. It's a distraction because it's not a real solution. Every living human could disappear tomorrow and the planet is still going to warm up by 5'C. Using less plastic and fossil fuel won't change that verdict one bit.
The way forward is using the tech we already have along with a little willpower. We have to migrate human populations northward - we already know the places that will be livable once the temperature goes up. Those areas of the planet are the future: Siberia, Antarctica, Canada, and northern Africa. Life outside of those areas is going to become difficult, dystopian, maybe even impossible. Life in those areas will be temperate, much like it is now, though with less and less biodiversity over time.
We're also going to have to concentrate everyone together into mega-cities, because we're not going to be able to maintain a population that's so spread out anymore if the environment becomes that hostile. People will need access to the power, water, food, and environmental protections that can only be provided effectively by centralizing everything into cities with large, well-maintained facilities.
Those cities will provide limitless electricity through nuclear power, record-breaking crop yields with vertical/indoor farming and tube-grown meat, pure water through nuclear powered desalination, and suitable environmental protections as the atmosphere worsens. That's one of the bigger dangers - the loss of oxygen in the atmosphere. We can get all the oxygen we need from water for those cities. People who can't or won't relocate to the cities are not going to make it.
The entire ecosystem can collapse in this scenario and we'll still be alive and well (those that survive the migration, anyway). We'll basically be doing exactly what we'd have to do to live on Mars or other dead planets here on Earth. After that we'll move to living in orbital habitats, which are better than planetary surfaces for a whole host of reasons.
That's Plan B.
I like Plan A better. We can get started with the solar shade right now and avoid much of that mess. The solar shade stops climate change overnight once it's deployed even if we do nothing else. All it takes is throwing enough debris in front of the sun, and once there it'll float for thousands of years before the solar winds disperse it. One of the chief dangers here is throwing up too much debris, since we'd end up freezing the planet if we get it wrong - and there's no easy way to clear out the debris cloud once it's there.
The solar shade is the only plan that holds out the hope of saving Earth's ecosystem. It's also a lot cheaper than mass migration and building new cities.
To me, this is the same thing as accepting suicide as a valid life choice.
Stop eating meat. At the very least eat as little as possible. Encourage others to do the same.
Switch to growing meat in tubes, instead of torturing animals to get it.
When it's grown in the tube instead of being carved out of some hapless critter, you get total control over the nutrition content and the flavor. You get to marinate the steak while it's being grown, and spare the cow - while avoiding all the diseases and methane emissions. This is already here today, it's just not economically competitive with traditional animal farming yet. That will change.
Yeah I agree with this but we really can't wait for it to become a mainstream thing, it's still years away.
One of the restaurants I used to frequent has tube-grown meat as a special from time to time. It's delicious, and the price wasn't that much higher. People seemed to like it because there's zero chance of getting tough sections, gristle, bone bits, or any kind of animal disease from eating it. It's not ready to replace your supermarket's meat counter yet, but that's more a function of energy costs than the tech involved in growing that meat.
We can't afford to wait 50 years for the tech to be there. Climate change is happening, now.
The lack of progress is a political and economic problem, not a technological one. The tech's already here, and most of it has been here for decades. We don't need more inventors - we need better leaders.
That's good advice and I've reduced my meat consumption a lot. Unfortunately it's far from being enough. If we keep relying on small steps to combat climate change, it looks like we're doomed.