Climate Change III - The Power of Chaos

[Rippounet]

29 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It may be that all non-fossil fuel energy options currently available won't be enough to replace fossil fuels AND provide for increased per person energy availability globally. But we should use all options available, in order to minimise or eliminate fossil fuel use in as short a time as possible.

Certainly. It's just that it will take time, even if we go all in on nuclear energy, and that in the meantime, we need to start thinking a bit differently. If we were rational, a global transition could be achieved in a few decades. The fact that we're obviously not being rational could be seen as the true problem. We can identify flaws in the organisation of modern human societies that have to be addressed, because their consequences go beyond global warming - which is only one aspect of the greater environmental crisis.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

 The fact that we're obviously not being rational

Truth.

[Rippounet]

Shiiit, can't resist this...

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Somewhat off-topic, but this continues to be bullshit. The hysterical people who consider everything a threat and act paranoid are the ones that the organized people will come and kill to get their stuff while acting cooperatively. Virtually every example of disaster, calamity or major problem shows that the main thing that survives is the community, and the people that do the best are the ones who work with others the best. 

The ones who cannot trust well and cannot build relationships are the ones who fail regularly. 

This is absolutely true, but does not offer as much hope as one might think, because "low threat-sensitivity people" (an interesting formulation btw) base their worldview on moral principles that, while dubious in themselves, do allow them to act cooperatively (scaringly so, as a matter of fact).
One of the aspects of the environmental crisis that doesn't get that much attention is its impact on morality, to be more specific, our definition of virtue.
I'm answering you Kal, because I know you have considered that aspect, so I don't necessarily expect us to disagree.

What is at stake is whether humanity can base its cooperation on universal moral principles, or whether human societies will prove unable to go beyond relative moral principles. Right now, the crisis is fueling relative moral principles, i.e. pushing right-wing folks to hysterically reassert national/cultural values at the expense of the global or universal - even if it means denialism. It's quite mechanical: in the face of a global existential threat, human societies will first turn inward and compete with one another (in its predictions, the CIA calls this "silo thinking" or something like this).
Especially as long as the deeper nature of the crisis is misunderstood - i.e. as long as everyone keeps deluding themselves into thinking we can avoid changing the socio-economic model/structure.

Cooperation will always remain the driving force of humanity, because we are social creatures and we will never escape this fact, but right now, this is actually working against us, because peoples want to reestablish national cohesion as a pre-requisite to anything. Of course right now the mechanism also stems from the refusal to admit historical responsibilities, i.e. the cost of both colonialism and the industrial revolutions, not to mention free market ideology - all of which are linked - as well as a solid dose of racism/essentialism - which we've been struggling with since forever.
In a nutshell, it's not about cooperation versus competition, alas, but about national or "civilisational" cooperation versus international cooperation.
Eventually, everyone will realise that competition is too costly, and humanity should finally unite around common values that will include the hard truth of physical constraints. But in the meantime, the costs of competition still threaten our species, because it's unclear whether unification can occur before the planet becomes incapable of sustainable large human groups. In the worst-case scenario, human societies compete until the population has been significantly reduced - by at least a third. But that is absolutely not inulectable, because as the crisis gets increasingly worse, it will expose the costs of competition as well as the sociological/anthropological function of morality in human cooperation. In other words, there is a pretty good chance that rationality and morality will reassert themselves. Imho it's not about "if" but more about "when."
In the best-case scenario, humanity starts coming to its senses immediately after the first truly apocalyptic climactic event, which (on paper) should be a deadly heatwave striking Asia in the next 15 years. That's basically Kim Robinson's scenario, with a 20-million death toll as a trigger to start unification.

And yes, I'm aware this sounds nsane, but we do live in insane times.

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What is at stake is whether humanity can base its cooperation on universal moral principles, or whether human societies will prove unable to go beyond relative moral principles.

Err... we don't actually have any universal moral principles beyond some very generic ones which are not at all useful in dealing with the complicated systems that we've constructed. Likewise, cooperation by itself is not going to deal with global warming. In fact, international cooperation has dramatically increased our consumption of fossil fuels as well as the amount of waste that we produce. What we need is cooperation of a large fraction of humanity in the direction of a specific goal which is much harder to get.

20 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's basically Kim Robinson's scenario, with a 20-million death toll as a trigger to start unification.

I read that book and I find it wildly optimistic in multiple respects. I don't think it will work that way.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Shiiit, can't resist this...

This is absolutely true, but does not offer as much hope as one might think, because "low threat-sensitivity people" (an interesting formulation btw) base their worldview on moral principles that, while dubious in themselves, do allow them to act cooperatively (scaringly so, as a matter of fact).
One of the aspects of the environmental crisis that doesn't get that much attention is its impact on morality, to be more specific, our definition of virtue.
I'm answering you Kal, because I know you have considered that aspect, so I don't necessarily expect us to disagree.

Nope, we don't disagree. It's a good callout. I'd even go further and say that we won't even be able to do things like national-level cooperation. Humans are good at tribes, but tribes stop becoming tribal around the 100-150 person mark. You can kind of fake it via appealing to tribal viewpoints (like nationalism tries to do) but that only goes so far. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Eventually, everyone will realise that competition is too costly

Yeah, you're way more optimistic than I am. 

My personal viewpoint is that there are only two ways that that will happen: by changing what humans actually are, or by some external moral force that makes it clear to everyone that it is Against The Rules. I've spoken about that before, but my viewpoint is that only something like a major religion around conservation would actually work.

And that could happen if things get bad enough! Religions often get formed out of really shitty events. But otherwise? No, I don't see it happening. Genetic engineering and brain tampering or mind-altering chemicals or experiential systems like the Forever Peace that cause people to consider everyone might do it, but those are all sci-fi wishes. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

But that is absolutely not inulectable, because as the crisis gets increasingly worse, it will expose the costs of competition as well as the sociological/anthropological function of morality in human cooperation. In other words, there is a pretty good chance that rationality and morality will reassert themselves. Imho it's not about "if" but more about "when."

In the best-case scenario, humanity starts coming to its senses immediately after the first truly apocalyptic climactic event, which (on paper) should be a deadly heatwave striking Asia in the next 15 years. That's basically Kim Robinson's scenario, with a 20-million death toll as a trigger to start unification.

And yes, I'm aware this sounds nsane, but we do live in insane times.

Yeah, again I think you're way more optimistic than me. My prediction is that we will see significantly more pain than that, and the result of such a high death toll will not be to open up and cooperate and stop what we're doing - it will be to make sure we keep what is ours. It will be to lock down the borders further, to take the few resources that we can to keep our lives, to make lots of overloading the life boat analogies, to offer at best thoughts and prayers. It will be an increase in further right-wing policies, further national and sub-national movements, further breakdown of alliances and trust. Corporations will of course aid this, being slow paperclip AIs that will push for more erosion of laws to gain more wealth, and will leverage needy countries to get more and more allowances.

And then we get Cyberpunk. Except you'll be paying rent on everything and own nothing, not even your own body or mind.

But hey, maybe you're right. 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Err... we don't actually have any universal moral principles beyond some very generic ones which are not at all useful in dealing with the complicated systems that we've constructed.

I don't want to waste time arguing this, so I'll just give this one piece of information: about four months ago, probably the most eminent French sociologist (a 60-year old professor) proposed his grand theory. His 900-page book is a frontal attack on scientific -and moral- relativism that unifies anthropology and sociology to provide an interpretation of human nature and history based on centuries of human sciences.
It is called The fundamental structures of human societies and it's basically a step toward writing the laws of nature that govern our species.

This (and a number of other converging works) might become a religion, in the sense that it has a claim to the truth and yet requires a measure of faith to accept. But in that case, it will be a religion of science.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But hey, maybe you're right. 

At present, I'd go with a 50/50, but it's always darkest before dawn.
Of course, we both agree that it's about to get much much darker (the crisis in still in its infancy).
In truth, I don't expect anyone reading this will see the dawn.

[ThinkerX]

Best hope is Peak Oil makes petroleum expensive enough to create a serious reduction in fossil fuel usage. Granted, that will take most of the next fifty years to bring about, but it is realistically attainable. 

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that global warming has sometimes dramatically different effects in different regions. Some areas get hit with extreme temperature increases, while it is 'situation same as always' for many others.

[The Anti-Targ]

22 hours ago, Rippounet said:

This (and a number of other converging works) might become a religion, in the sense that it has a claim to the truth and yet requires a measure of faith to accept. But in that case, it will be a religion of science.

 

Or science finally validating religion's thousands of years of clearly stating that there are universal moral principles?

Anyway, key message coming out of CoP28: phasing out fossil fuels might help achieve <1.5^oC warming, you can try to do it if you like but, y'know, up to you, no big deal. Let's do lunch some day soon.

[Rippounet]

19 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Or science finally validating religion's thousands of years of clearly stating that there are universal moral principles?

Chicken and egg?

Anyway, on different news, I just found this periodic table reflecting the growing supply problems of raw materials. I'm happy about it, because I usually find this kind of stuff in French:

https://www.euchems.eu/euchems-periodic-table/

 

[A wilding]

I have been reading a history of my local town and was very much struck by one chapter that is sort of relevant to this thread.
 
In the mid 19th century the town was desperately in need of piped water and a sewage system. Life expectancy in the town was years less than it should have been, and there were frequent disease outbreaks. Proposals to build such a system were made, cue resistance such as:

• Outrage at the mere idea that town residents should be taxed for any purpose whatsoever.
• Rubbishing of the science demonstrating the link between poor sanitation and disease ("sanitation science is yet in its infancy ...").
• Demands that reports on disease outbreaks were edited to remove any mentions of links to insanitary conditions.
• Packing town hall meetings with opponents to the scheme.
• Various rule bending political manoeuvres.

I guess nothing changes. But it is perhaps hopeful that, with the need for action increasingly stating them in the face, all this only caused a delay of about 10 years.

Edited December 18, 2023 by A wilding

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Short interview with Fatih Birol (Head of the IEA)

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Short interview with Fatih Birol (Head of the IEA)

Thanks, that's an incredible interview. This bit is dynamite:

 

Quote

 

DER SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, many state and private oil and gas companies want to open up new fields and expand their production capacities.
Birol: As there is high demand for oil and gas, it may be necessary to replace older fields with decreasing amounts of production with new sources. But corporations and governments that are still increasing their fossil production in the years to come might be betting on the climate crisis. Their investments in new oil and gas fields are much higher than would be necessary to keep production at the current level.

DER SPIEGEL: Could you be a bit more specific?

Birol: According to our analysis, the oil and gas industry invests around $800 billion in new oil and gas projects per year – and only about $20 billion in renewable energies. You know that CEOs are constantly talking about climate-friendly technologies. When you look at their advertising, you will see solar modules, wind farms and so on. The regenerative energies get a huge piece of the corporate PR – but not even three percent of the money. The difference is huge between what the managers say and what they actually do.

 

It's refreshing to see him denounce climate-destroying policies and demand more investment in renewables.

He's a bit optimistic as to their potential though. The way he spins it, if we accelerated our investment in renewables instead of investing in fossil fuels we would be on RCP4,5 (stabilisation of CO2 PPM at under 700 by mid-century) and remain under +3°C (I dunnno how he gets to +2,4°C). However, the limits of extraction mean he should at least mention nuclear energy as indispensable to reach such a target.

[mcbigski]

On 12/18/2023 at 7:30 PM, Rippounet said:

However, the limits of extraction mean he should at least mention nuclear energy as indispensable to reach such a target.

Nuclear is a solution that involves reducing centralized control of the economy rather than increasing it, and therefore, a non starter.

[Ran]

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Nuclear is a solution that involves reducing centralized control of the economy rather than increasing it

France, the world's greatest producer of nuclear energy, would be surprised by this news. Every nuclear reactor is state-owned in France.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Nuclear is a solution that involves reducing centralized control of the economy rather than increasing it, and therefore, a non starter.

Yes because clearly we want companies pushing for reduced safety regulations for nuclear power.  What could possibly go wrong?

[Ran]

Well, I will say, there are compelling arguments that the US regulation of nuclear energy is incredibly over the top and counter-productive, especially as it comes to newly-proposed small, modular reactor designs being held to standards for traditional reactors even though the safety risks inherent in the designs, and their potential scope of harm, are far, far less. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Ran

[KingAerys_II]

Nuclear energy is  necessary to reduce carbon emissions, renewable energy is important for the peak loads, nuclear energy produces base loads, it's possible to make regulation of the loads when you use nuclear energy, it depends on the quantity of fuel involved in the process of nuclear fission, it's impossible to regulate renewable energy.
United States of America, China and India make more than 50 percent of carbon emission, nuclear energy in the United States is necessary.
Some European countries regret the fact they never had nuclear energy production, most of the base load is produced by HRSG power plant, the fuel is the gas.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 12/19/2023 at 3:18 AM, A wilding said:

I have been reading a history of my local town and was very much struck by one chapter that is sort of relevant to this thread.
 
In the mid 19th century the town was desperately in need of piped water and a sewage system. Life expectancy in the town was years less than it should have been, and there were frequent disease outbreaks. Proposals to build such a system were made, cue resistance such as:

• Outrage at the mere idea that town residents should be taxed for any purpose whatsoever.
• Rubbishing of the science demonstrating the link between poor sanitation and disease ("sanitation science is yet in its infancy ...").
• Demands that reports on disease outbreaks were edited to remove any mentions of links to insanitary conditions.
• Packing town hall meetings with opponents to the scheme.
• Various rule bending political manoeuvres.

I guess nothing changes. But it is perhaps hopeful that, with the need for action increasingly stating them in the face, all this only caused a delay of about 10 years.

You're being very generous with that 10 year delay. We've been talking about climate change on this board since I joined in 2008, and it was of concern public policy circles before then.

On 12/19/2023 at 1:30 PM, Rippounet said:

Thanks, that's an incredible interview. This bit is dynamite:

 

It's refreshing to see him denounce climate-destroying policies and demand more investment in renewables.

He's a bit optimistic as to their potential though. The way he spins it, if we accelerated our investment in renewables instead of investing in fossil fuels we would be on RCP4,5 (stabilisation of CO2 PPM at under 700 by mid-century) and remain under +3°C (I dunnno how he gets to +2,4°C). However, the limits of extraction mean he should at least mention nuclear energy as indispensable to reach such a target.

I don't know this person's particular environmental politics, but there are still too many environmentalists who refuse to believe nukes can or should be part of the solution to eliminating fossil fuels, and they may well be one of these.

I don't know if SMRs can or need to be part of our country's energy future, but I am angry that no one with decision-making power in energy policy is even considering the question or bringing it up for rational public debate. We've kept our strict anti-nuke policy as a precious holy relic from the days when we were anti-nuke because France was testing weapons on Pacific atolls and the USA wanted to send nuclear capable warships and subs on visits to our ports during the cold war with a neither confirm nor deny policy. But we threw the energy baby out with the WMD bathwater for no good public policy reason.

[Rippounet]

I'm heavily biased on this for more than one reason. I really like Jancovici's approach, and he's widely known for his advocacy of nuclear energy. The comic book he co-created is now available in English btw:
https://www.europecomics.com/album/world-without-end/

Not that I would recommend it to anyone who is already on board, but it does make for a good gift.

[mcbigski]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:52 AM, Ran said:

France, the world's greatest producer of nuclear energy, would be surprised by this news. Every nuclear reactor is state-owned in France.

I'm not one who defaults to praising the French, but they got that one right.  My understanding though is that their nuclear program isn't a result of carbon emission sensibility.  I suspect they wanted their own source of plutonium, and didn't have a whole lot of oil, so nuclear made even more sense.

But as you said subsequently, the US approval process is rather overwrought.  Having cheap, consistent, environmentally safe energy is a problem if one's goal is control via emergencies.