Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Irish Times)   A look at how Ireland got sober really quickly over what it means to actually address climate change   (irishtimes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Carbon dioxide, Greenhouse gas, Climate change, Global warming, Fossil fuel, Prof Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester, Ireland's commitment, CCAC recommendation  
•       •       •

1168 clicks; posted to STEM » on 17 Jan 2022 at 12:35 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-17 12:40:01 PM  
To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.

This is not going to happen.  Can you imagine everyone agreeing to ground all aircraft, dock all cargo ships, park all trains and trucks?

We're getting more warming and the climate change that implies, the question is only how quickly and how far it will go.
 
2022-01-17 12:46:38 PM  

Unsung_Hero: To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.

This is not going to happen.  Can you imagine everyone agreeing to ground all aircraft, dock all cargo ships, park all trains and trucks?

We're getting more warming and the climate change that implies, the question is only how quickly and how far it will go.


Oh shut up. Trains and boats are literally the most carbon efficient means of transport to exist. They are the last thing you should worry about on the list of problems, and they are in a phase of natural transition to higher efficiency as all the old models continue to reach end of life and be replaced by the newer ones
 
2022-01-17 12:49:25 PM  

Unsung_Hero: To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.

This is not going to happen.  Can you imagine everyone agreeing to ground all aircraft, dock all cargo ships, park all trains and trucks?

We're getting more warming and the climate change that implies, the question is only how quickly and how far it will go.


100% and a country like Ireland doesn't mean shiat, frankly. The entire US, entirety of Europe, entirety of China, etc would have to do this. Yea farking right.
 
2022-01-17 12:55:36 PM  
We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'. We live in a finite world with finite resources. But as we are now in overshoot and incapable of actually addressing the change due to addiction, the fallout of these actions will be mass death and a global reset of society and regional carrying capacities of mankind.

'Sustainable growth' is the Law that demands we work in confined areas during a pandemic and policies like the 5 day quarantine if positive, and the rules that tell health care staff and teachers to work despite being sick. During a pandemic.
 
2022-01-17 1:00:25 PM  

Nadie_AZ: We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'.


We run everything like it's cancer and cancer is good.  We should always have been targeting 'sustainable existence', which allows for the idea of growth until new growth can no longer be reliably supported.
 
2022-01-17 1:05:18 PM  
Economic growth is not incompatible with CO2 reduction. Rather it's becoming increasingly dependent on it.
Small countries have just as much need to step up to these challenges as large. They influence others and combine to form real change.
 
2022-01-17 1:08:42 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Nadie_AZ: We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'.

We run everything like it's cancer and cancer is good.  We should always have been targeting 'sustainable existence', which allows for the idea of growth until new growth can no longer be reliably supported.


How do you stop growth once the addiction sets in? I'm living in a region where land speculation is off the charts amidst a 20+ year drought and an active drought declaration and loss of water. The result? GROW MORE!!

I'm almost done with this book. I highly recommend it.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-17 1:13:04 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Unsung_Hero: To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.

This is not going to happen.  Can you imagine everyone agreeing to ground all aircraft, dock all cargo ships, park all trains and trucks?

We're getting more warming and the climate change that implies, the question is only how quickly and how far it will go.

Oh shut up. Trains and boats are literally the most carbon efficient means of transport to exist. They are the last thing you should worry about on the list of problems, and they are in a phase of natural transition to higher efficiency as all the old models continue to reach end of life and be replaced by the newer ones


Every source of emissions don't ever seem to exceed 20% of the total.

That means there's no easy, low-hanging fruit; every facet of modern life has to be cut back.

Meaning NOTHING is going to happen to cause real reductions except societies collapsing globally.

That's your rich reward, you stinking Ferengi fascists: a spent world of cinders.
 
2022-01-17 1:14:48 PM  
Please note:

This is a country that in less than a generation ceased to be Great Britain's Mexico and has become its Switzerland---and in purchasing power parity terms, its GDP per capita exceeds Switzerland's. The global financial crisis was a temporary setback to a huge increase in Irish living standards.

If the cost of bring greenhouse gas emissions under control is political suicide even in Ireland, we have a serious problem on our hands.
 
2022-01-17 1:20:45 PM  

MikeyFuccon: Please note:

This is a country that in less than a generation ceased to be Great Britain's Mexico and has become its Switzerland---and in purchasing power parity terms, its GDP per capita exceeds Switzerland's. The global financial crisis was a temporary setback to a huge increase in Irish living standards.

If the cost of bring greenhouse gas emissions under control is political suicide even in Ireland, we have a serious problem on our hands.


Ireland's economic rise was mostly driven by a supposed first world country eagerly agreeing to legally permit global money laundering by corporations to avoid PAYING THEIR PROPER SHARE OF FARKING TAXES.
 
2022-01-17 1:25:48 PM  

Nadie_AZ: We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'. We live in a finite world with finite resources. But as we are now in overshoot and incapable of actually addressing the change due to addiction, the fallout of these actions will be mass death and a global reset of society and regional carrying capacities of mankind.

'Sustainable growth' is the Law that demands we work in confined areas during a pandemic and policies like the 5 day quarantine if positive, and the rules that tell health care staff and teachers to work despite being sick. During a pandemic.


stopping global warming requires stopping capitalism
 
2022-01-17 1:25:53 PM  

MikeyFuccon: Please note:

This is a country that in less than a generation ceased to be Great Britain's Mexico and has become its Switzerland---and in purchasing power parity terms, its GDP per capita exceeds Switzerland's. The global financial crisis was a temporary setback to a huge increase in Irish living standards.


And they largely succeeded the same way as Switzerland - play the lowest ground in a race to the bottom, and the world's capital will flow into your borders.
 
2022-01-17 1:26:02 PM  
We're human beings. We're surrounded by greedy, simplistic, short-sighted people unwilling to sacrifice anything for anyone or anything else. Most people.

That's why we will never address this. You can have concerts and pretty t-shirts and sh*t.., but if you really explain what it entails to make real adjustments to help mitigate climate change... dude, you're not going to get enough buy-in to mean anything.

I'm not a defeatist, I'm just realistic. I recycle and all that sh*t and I laugh about it, because none of it does anything because so many other things are going on counteracts all of that.

Locally? Absolutely awesome. You can see the difference in the Bay because of these efforts and it's mostly easy stuff. Globally? Man... I just see what's going to happen when these costs and changes hit the governments and they are going to fear backlash and curb them.

Good luck. We're gonna need it. Big time.
 
2022-01-17 1:36:34 PM  

ElwoodCuse: Nadie_AZ: We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'. We live in a finite world with finite resources. But as we are now in overshoot and incapable of actually addressing the change due to addiction, the fallout of these actions will be mass death and a global reset of society and regional carrying capacities of mankind.

'Sustainable growth' is the Law that demands we work in confined areas during a pandemic and policies like the 5 day quarantine if positive, and the rules that tell health care staff and teachers to work despite being sick. During a pandemic.

stopping global warming requires stopping capitalism


Tell that to the solar and RE millionaires in China.
 
2022-01-17 1:38:13 PM  

Nadie_AZ: We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'. We live in a finite world with finite resources. But as we are now in overshoot and incapable of actually addressing the change due to addiction, the fallout of these actions will be mass death and a global reset of society and regional carrying capacities of mankind.

'Sustainable growth' is the Law that demands we work in confined areas during a pandemic and policies like the 5 day quarantine if positive, and the rules that tell health care staff and teachers to work despite being sick. During a pandemic.


Obtainable Degrowth is what we need.

I recommend instituting a global lottery where every day 1,000,000 people are selected as Climate Winners, stuffed full of environmentally friendly explosives, mag-rail-gunned to near LEO altitudes then blown into dust sized pieces.  After 10 years of this our carbon-generating population will be halved.  This, with the shading from the winner-dust, will quickly push the climate back toward friendly, ice-age territory!
 
2022-01-17 1:40:02 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Unsung_Hero: To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.

This is not going to happen.  Can you imagine everyone agreeing to ground all aircraft, dock all cargo ships, park all trains and trucks?

We're getting more warming and the climate change that implies, the question is only how quickly and how far it will go.

Oh shut up. Trains and boats are literally the most carbon efficient means of transport to exist. They are the last thing you should worry about on the list of problems, and they are in a phase of natural transition to higher efficiency as all the old models continue to reach end of life and be replaced by the newer ones


Yeah, trains and boats are about 4-5 times as efficient as trucks, and 100 times as efficient as aircraft.

Ground shipping is green shipping.
 
2022-01-17 1:54:18 PM  

Enigmamf: Concrete Donkey: Unsung_Hero: To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.

This is not going to happen.  Can you imagine everyone agreeing to ground all aircraft, dock all cargo ships, park all trains and trucks?

We're getting more warming and the climate change that implies, the question is only how quickly and how far it will go.

Oh shut up. Trains and boats are literally the most carbon efficient means of transport to exist. They are the last thing you should worry about on the list of problems, and they are in a phase of natural transition to higher efficiency as all the old models continue to reach end of life and be replaced by the newer ones

Yeah, trains and boats are about 4-5 times as efficient as trucks, and 100 times as efficient as aircraft.

Ground shipping is green shipping.


Being serious for a moment, I fear rail is still slowly dying in favor of air and over-the-road transport - all to feed our increasing need for instant gratification.  Amazon Prime... enough said.

At the risk of sounding Polly Muskyanna, imagine narrow-gauge, elevated rail (freight only) built in the right-of-way of all Interstate and many US highways.  None of the physics and economy defying vacuum tube BS of HyperLoop, just fast freight with no "level crossings" and no stops between major hubs.  It could go fast (but not hyper-fast) because there would be no passengers.

Without the HyperLoop stupidity, this could be mostly powered by solar FOR REAL, with its own redundant national grid across time zones, PV panels and wind turbines along its path.  Eventual automation could allow for NO stops at all, except for individual cars leaving and joining the train.
 
2022-01-17 2:17:17 PM  

dailygrinds: ElwoodCuse: Nadie_AZ: We must stop this notion of 'sustainable growth'. We live in a finite world with finite resources. But as we are now in overshoot and incapable of actually addressing the change due to addiction, the fallout of these actions will be mass death and a global reset of society and regional carrying capacities of mankind.

'Sustainable growth' is the Law that demands we work in confined areas during a pandemic and policies like the 5 day quarantine if positive, and the rules that tell health care staff and teachers to work despite being sick. During a pandemic.

stopping global warming requires stopping capitalism

Tell that to the solar and RE millionaires in China.


Authoritarian capitalism is still capitalism. I'm sure the USA will get it when really, since we helped set up the first examples of it in Chile and a few other places.
 
2022-01-17 2:38:59 PM  

ElwoodCuse: stopping global warming requires stopping capitalism


Capital idea!

Along with my previously posted idea, Communism may also greatly reduce the carbon-generating population through starvation.  There *might* be a carbon blip as people burn all the forests for fuel, but eventually the food sources will run out and the people will die off rapidly.

Good thinking, Elwood!
 
2022-01-17 5:50:11 PM  
It's a no-win scenario.  The Kobayashi Maru 

The only way to cut consumption is through increasing prices (constraining supply or taxing supply).  There's simply not political will in a democratic system for rationing consumption.

To the average Joe, raising prices due to constraining supply or taxing consumption is indistinguishable from inflation.  We've seen how that goes over - even a Democratic administration will tap the strategic petroleum reserve once the complaints about how much it costs to fill an F-one-fiddy become too loud.

Then, there's the social disruption side: suddenly, living in a real house isn't an option for normal middle class families - they start moving down to townhouses and condos.  The students and young professionals living in townhouses and condos get bumped down to apartments.  The poor people living in apartments... well, they've SOL.  Think we can just use redistributive benefits to keep them housed?  You've just made grown adults move back into townhouses and share walls like college students, and you want to give poor people extra benefits?   You've made them drive around in compact cars, if they can afford to drive cars at all, give up their international vacations, their cruises, their cheap flights to visit family?  That'll go over like a lead balloon. 

Oh yeah, it'll happen eventually when petroleum and coal get too expensive.

Technological fixes (improvements in alternative energies and storage) are the only *possible* way to reduce energy consumption and emissions that doesn't involve either dictatorships taking unpopular, draconian actions, or a die-off that eliminated a huge chunk of the population.  The most likely dictatorships to emerge in the west aren't environmental reigns of terror.  The east shows no sign of even pumping the brakes.

Sitting in a circle and screaming "if only people would ____..." is a pointless exercise.  

All our collective efforts need to be focused on adaption and mitigation, because stopping or rolling back emissions is simply a non-starter.
 
2022-01-17 6:12:26 PM  
The world economy has to grow at about 3% a year, or everything will crash.  Discuss.

Fark user imageView Full Size


The powers will do everything in their power to keep us a consumer nation, while mealy-mouthing about how we're going to "move forward" on climate change.  No, you don't MOVE FORWARD.  You STAY STILL.  You stop trading all over the world, you stop traveling all over the world, you go home and you imagine what it would be like to live without a car.  FOREVER.  as a way of life.

Deal with it.
 
2022-01-17 6:15:52 PM  

Izunbacol: It's a no-win scenario.  The Kobayashi Maru 

The only way to cut consumption is through increasing prices (constraining supply or taxing supply).  There's simply not political will in a democratic system for rationing consumption.

To the average Joe, raising prices due to constraining supply or taxing consumption is indistinguishable from inflation.  We've seen how that goes over - even a Democratic administration will tap the strategic petroleum reserve once the complaints about how much it costs to fill an F-one-fiddy become too loud.

Then, there's the social disruption side: suddenly, living in a real house isn't an option for normal middle class families - they start moving down to townhouses and condos.  The students and young professionals living in townhouses and condos get bumped down to apartments.  The poor people living in apartments... well, they've SOL.  Think we can just use redistributive benefits to keep them housed?  You've just made grown adults move back into townhouses and share walls like college students, and you want to give poor people extra benefits?   You've made them drive around in compact cars, if they can afford to drive cars at all, give up their international vacations, their cruises, their cheap flights to visit family?  That'll go over like a lead balloon. 

Oh yeah, it'll happen eventually when petroleum and coal get too expensive.

Technological fixes (improvements in alternative energies and storage) are the only *possible* way to reduce energy consumption and emissions that doesn't involve either dictatorships taking unpopular, draconian actions, or a die-off that eliminated a huge chunk of the population.  The most likely dictatorships to emerge in the west aren't environmental reigns of terror.  The east shows no sign of even pumping the brakes.

Sitting in a circle and screaming "if only people would ____..." is a pointless exercise.  

All our collective efforts need to be focused on adaption and mitigation, because stopping or rolling back emissions is simply a non-starter.


The only real way to cut consumption is to cut production. Capitalists have no interest in that.
 
2022-01-17 6:36:39 PM  
I know that here are at least five to ten people on this site who, thank diety, do not spend a lot of time playing holier than thou with all they do in daily life to limit their carbon footprint. And in fact, it is one of the things I love about this site. There is not a lot of eco-signalling, which turns into an echo chamber.

In fact, what the eco-champions do here is split hairs and criticize one another, particularly regarding automobile companies that start with T and end with A.

Be that as it may, it is splitting hairs. Very few people are willing to put up with any inconvenience, investment, payment, tax, regulation, etc. that might involve a slight change or diminishment of the way they have planned their lifestyle. My extended family includes plenty of big dog owners, big truck owners, and well, you can probably complete the list of environmental no-noes they engage in regularly. Unnecessary air travel, pollution, conspicuous consumption, no recycling whatsoever, no composting. I am the only one, among about 20 who does the hybrid, solar, recycling thing.

Whatever happens with electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles won't make a huge difference for over a decade hence. What people DO NOW is gripe when gasoline prices increase a dime a gallon. They buy bottled water and toss the bottle in a ditch. They turn up the thermostat rather than put on socks and sweater.

Most people do not examine their life at all. They won't change how they live. Billions are spent daily just to change people's brands, not their degree or volume of consumption. Companies are strapped to produce MORE, in almost all cases.

That is not the whole world, but that is most of it. Most of the world is doing whatever possible to CONSUME MORE. Probably not even 5% are trying to consume less. 3%? The solar panels and charging stations at Taco Bell.... think about it.... are designed to get people to consume MORE....

If Ireland can possibly succeed, it will have done it with huge amounts of cheap capital, a cooperative public, and a responsive government. Almost ideal conditions.

I do not know how to end this, except to say that regular people need to start taking some measures, however small, to stop adding to the problem and move to solving immediate problems. Hoping that technology is going to deliver us is simply denial. Like some obese guy answering a diet pill ad.
 
2022-01-17 6:38:38 PM  

Izunbacol: It's a no-win scenario.  The Kobayashi Maru 

The only way to cut consumption is through increasing prices (constraining supply or taxing supply).  There's simply not political will in a democratic system for rationing consumption.

To the average Joe, raising prices due to constraining supply or taxing consumption is indistinguishable from inflation.  We've seen how that goes over - even a Democratic administration will tap the strategic petroleum reserve once the complaints about how much it costs to fill an F-one-fiddy become too loud.

Then, there's the social disruption side: suddenly, living in a real house isn't an option for normal middle class families - they start moving down to townhouses and condos.  The students and young professionals living in townhouses and condos get bumped down to apartments.  The poor people living in apartments... well, they've SOL.  Think we can just use redistributive benefits to keep them housed?  You've just made grown adults move back into townhouses and share walls like college students, and you want to give poor people extra benefits?   You've made them drive around in compact cars, if they can afford to drive cars at all, give up their international vacations, their cruises, their cheap flights to visit family?  That'll go over like a lead balloon. 

Oh yeah, it'll happen eventually when petroleum and coal get too expensive.

Technological fixes (improvements in alternative energies and storage) are the only *possible* way to reduce energy consumption and emissions that doesn't involve either dictatorships taking unpopular, draconian actions, or a die-off that eliminated a huge chunk of the population.  The most likely dictatorships to emerge in the west aren't environmental reigns of terror.  The east shows no sign of even pumping the brakes.

Sitting in a circle and screaming "if only people would ____..." is a pointless exercise.  

All our collective efforts need to be focused on adaption and mitigation, because stopping or rolling back emissions is simply a non-starter.


There is no meaningful adaptation at a certain point, it's just "welp end-Permian type event, game over." If we give up trying we get the 4C or 6C outcomes and we all die.

This is why people aren't talking about "adaptation" to a warmer world. To adapt means to adapt society, which means... Cutting emissions to the bone. That IS adaptation. If we fark the climate enough that farming become unreliable we all die. There simply isn't any way to replace the existing farmland.

Cutting emissions is a minimum requirement. It's not negotiable. If that means we fail and we all burn, well, get ready to burn.

In all honesty, calling for belt tightening is always gonna be difficult. But saying it can't be done is not true. Rationing has been done. It just requires a sense of necessity. Unfortunately, the only times in the past I can think of where that works is war. And we are in a sort of war, but it's a war within our own society. It's between the industrial system that got us here and our survival.

Honestly, though, I am not sure people are unwilling to cut back on consumption. They just need to get something in return. If you have people 30 hour work weeks and healthcare and 6 weeks vacation, they would take it. People get mad about gas price hikes because they don't have an option - yeah, a lot of people have more car than they need, but most of them don't care about it being gas or electric or whatever. And they don't have the option of not driving and many are already driving cheap cars. The yellow vests came from rural areas where driving was necessary, and were protesting taxes that targeted them while giving industry a pass. Reading this as "people can't handle cutting back and like gas cars" is the shallowest straw man ever built and it worked, because everyone repeats it.
 
2022-01-17 8:44:00 PM  

Unsung_Hero: To really address it... we need to have a negative impact.  Not only do we have to cease doing anything that adds CO2 to the atmosphere, we need a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels.


If we stop adding it faster than the planet can process it, the levels will fall naturally. We can help that with tree planting etc. but really don't need to do that much.

A lot of our tech is very nearly carbon neutral already. Coal is being phased out, oil will follow and gas. All electric transport is available and it being brought in with the natural replacement cycle. After that, we're not really adding more CO2, there's still the methane issue around cow burps, but that might be phased out with lab grown meat.

We do have to overcome some anti-nuclear hangers-on, which could be a problem, but overall this isn't that difficult, we're making it more complicated than we need to.
 
2022-01-18 6:39:13 AM  

Izunbacol: The only way to cut consumption is through increasing prices (constraining supply or taxing supply).  There's simply not political will in a democratic system for rationing consumption.


Yep.  Imagine if we implemented WWII-style rationing combined with incredibly high prices.  Ensuring that everyone has what they need at a reasonable price, but getting what they want?  Yeah, they're going to pay out the ass for it.

Fuel, as just one example.  My wife has a 22 mile daily commute (110 miles per week), whereas I work from home.  She gets a ration that gives her enough gas at a reasonable price (call it $3/gallon) for her weekly commute plus an additional 10 miles beyond that (because everyone needs to do things like go to the grocery store).  I only get the 10 mile ration because I don't have an actual need.  Beyond that ration?  Price the gas at something ridiculously high, maybe $30/gallon (a tenfold increase sounds reasonable).  It gives a person a helluva lot of incentive to plan their non-essential shopping/errands into as few trips as possible to minimize miles traveled.  Vacation travel ends up being a major investment, more than it already is.  My wife's recent road trip to visit her octogenarian mother/step-dad over the holidays, roughly $170 in gas by the $3/gallon figure, becomes expensive at $1700.  Do the same with airline travel, because despite what we've been told by generations of marketers, no one actually needs to fly anywhere.  The pandemic has even reinforced that flying for business to have face-to-face meetings can be replaced by Zoom.  Your $300 round trip flight to Vegas becomes $3000.  Your $3000 flight to Europe becomes $30,000.

Do this with every single product and service, and do it worldwide.

This would be complicated to implement (but doable), but as you mentioned, do we have the political will?  Even if we did, the uproar would guarantee that every single world leader who endorsed it would be voted out of office ASAP.

All our collective efforts need to be focused on adaption and mitigation, because stopping or rolling back emissions is simply a non-starter.

Unfortunately, that's true at this point.  The pandemic has shown pretty clearly that few people are willing to give up anything for the common good.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.