Non-incremental Solutions for Global Warming

[Bob Wallace]

There are some individuals on this forum who object to incremental approaches to stopping global warming/climate change.  That's fine, as long as there is at least one non-incremental solution which has a reasonable chance of working.

I'd like to create a space where people could describe their, or others', ideas of how we might solve our problem non-incrementally, in one step.

I'd like to see serious responses. 

Not statements of frustration as to why we haven't yet solved the problem.  I think all of us posting here greatly wish faster progress. 

Not statements of despair.  Solutions.

No diversions into this or that country isn't doing enough. 

Please no 'go watch this hour long video' or naked links.  If you can't explain your solution in a few sentences then you don't understand it.

A serious discussion, please.

[Neven]

There are some individuals on this forum who object to incremental approaches to stopping global warming/climate change.

I'm not objecting to them, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that it's not enough, even if we ignore the fact that there are more global problems besides AGW, which are all caused by the same systemic flaws in how things have been set up.

What I object to is to you objecting to that. 

Sometimes it's difficult to explain what something is, especially if you only have a few sentences to do it. It can then be easier to explain what something isn't. So, here goes:

Solutions that do not change the system, aren't solutions, whether they are incremental or not, because you can't solve a problem if you don't take away the cause.

[Bob Wallace]

Honestly, Neven, what you posted is gobbledygook.

Either you have a non-incremental solution or you don't.

Solutions that do not change the system, aren't solutions

That is logically flawed.  If there's a solution then it's a solution whether it changes the system or not. 

What I object to is to you objecting to (changing the system).

I have no objection to "changing the system".  But that's not the topic here.  Unless you know how to change the system in one swift move in a way that stops global warming.

Whether incremental changes are happening fast enough and/or how we might speed up incremental changes are not a topic appropriate for this thread.  Let's please stay on topic and see if anyone has the 'one giant step' solution.

[Daniel B.]

That is not entirely accurate.  We know the cause is added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and there are numerous sources (all a result of combustion).  At some atmospheric concentration and emission level, nature (carbon sinks) can remove an amount equal to that added, and atmospheric levels will stabilize.  While this does not take away the cause, it can be viewed as a solution, if we are willing to accept the higher level.  Hence, an incremental solution may work.

[Bob Wallace]

Thanks, Daniel, but your comment is offtopic.  Many of us see incremental steps that should eventually take us off fossil fuels.  But some of us "feel provoked by (my) 'lesser evil incremental steps realism'" to borrow words from a message I received.

What I'm after here is an education as to what single step solutions would stop global warming.

Are there any single step solutions or only grief that there aren't?

[magnamentis]

another good example for how two (or more) highly skilled and highly appreciated persons who want the same thing happen and probably agree in big parts get lost in petty disputes, not meand with disrespect, it's just how i see it.

to say something on topic, i think there is no non-incremental solutions that will work, at least not one that will be chosen by humanity as a whole freely.

IMO we are going to need a at least one but probably several heavy and catastrophic economic as well as political as well as natural disruptions (deadly events) so that mankind has to reboot and go from scratch starting with a way smaller population.

i hope no-one will now reply that this is no ethical or cruel or bad wishing. no no, it's what i believe will happen not saying it's something i wish, on the contrary, we all have a lot to loose in that process and we shall loose almost everything in the process and unfortunately the most guilty ones will probably not even be the greatest victims like so often.

[Neven]

So, we end up with word games revolving around the definitions 'solution' and 'incremental'. 

Everything is incremental, there is no such thing as 'single-step', unless the planet explodes or something.

The point is that the increments are not fast enough to seriously reduce risks, and they only address one of many symptoms (AGW) that threaten human civilisation. If the system doesn't change, things will inevitably turn ugly.

Green technology is great, but it isn't enough, it cannot satisfy the demands of the current system. A combination of green technology and reduced systemic demands might stand a chance. I really don't understand why that's so offensive. It's a perfectly legitimate opinion.

You want a real solution? Put a cap on how much individuals can own, and start reducing those systemic demands. Or do we rather throw a party when Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates reach the one trillion mark?

Yes, I know, I'm entering taboo territory here. And that's the problem. We're only allowed to cheer on the technofixes.

[Bob Wallace]

i think there is no non-incremental solutions that will work, at least not one that will be chosen by humanity as a whole freely.

That aligns with my belief.  But I'm opening up the discussion to learn if anyone has a solution that I haven't heard about.

I think climatic suffering will have to get appreciably worse before we see people willing to sacrifice as a way to slow climate change.  And we can't afford to wait to see where that point might be. We might have dialed in extreme climate change by then.

[Bob Wallace]

So, we end up with word games revolving around the definitions 'solution' and 'incremental'. 

Everything is incremental, there is no such thing as 'single-step', unless the planet explodes or something.

The point is that the increments are not fast enough to seriously reduce risks, and they only address one of many symptoms (AGW) that threaten human civilisation. If the system doesn't change, things will inevitably turn ugly.

Green technology is great, but it isn't enough, it cannot satisfy the demands of the current system.  i think there is no non-incremental solutions that will work, at least not one that will be chosen by humanity as a whole freely.

You want a real solution? Put a cap on how much individuals can own, and start reducing those systemic demands. Or do we rather throw a party when Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates reach the one trillion mark?

Yes, I know, I'm entering taboo territory here. And that's the problem. We're only allowed to cheer on the technofixes.

The words "incremental" and "non-incremental" need no definition.  There's no word play at play.  Either we have non-incremental solutions or we don't. 

This is a thread where people who know about non-incremental solutions can introduce them to those of us who don't know any.

Obviously we are not moving fast enough since, as I have said several times, we are already suffering from climate change.  The question is whether we will move fast enough to avoid extreme climate change.  But that's not the topic of this thread.

You seem to think there's some sort of "system change" that would make everything right.  Seems to me that you're talking about a major worldwide change in how we govern ourselves.

I suppose that could solve our problems but it's not realistic.  There's no realism behind 'burn it all down and the perfect will emerge from the ashes'.  And there's no overwhelming force which would overthrow all the resistive governments and replace them with whatever system you think would work.

Putting a cap on how much individuals could own would work as long as no one was allowed to own an internal combustion engine nor use fossil fuel heating and air conditioning.  And no fossil fuels were permitted in agriculture. 

In a few words: not going to happen.

Let's let this thread ride for awhile.  Keep it free from tangential discussions.  See if someone can identify the magic bullet.

If not, let's accept that until an one step solution arises we need to quit griping about incremental steps and get to work making the steps faster and larger.

[Neven]

I think climatic suffering will have to get appreciably worse before we see people willing to sacrifice as a way to slow climate change.  And we can't afford to wait to see where that point might be. We might have dialed in extreme climate change by then.

It isn't an either/or proposition. You can promote green technology, while at the same time admitting that it's not enough, and that the system must change, so that the technology can satisfy the demands. Just like you can mitigate AGW, while adapting to its consequences. To say you have to do either of those two, is presenting a false choice. Especially if you maintain that there is no alternative to the lesser evil. That's the kind of propaganda that has led us to where we are.

Of course, we can also ridicule or forbid any talk of systemic changes, and thus make sure we reach that point where the 99% have to make all the sacrifices that the 1% have never been willing to make. But that usually doesn't end well for anybody. It has been tried many times in history, but this time it's done on a planetary scale.

[Neven]

Bob, this is the problem we're having and why we are talking past each other: the root cause of AGW (being just one of the symptoms that threatens human civilisation). I'm under the illusion that I know what it is, while you seem to be either unaware of it, or not interested in it.

Do you agree with me that a problem can't be solved, unless the problem is fully understood? That fighting the symptoms, without taking away the root cause, leads nowhere in the long term?

If we can agree on that, then maybe we can discuss what we both think the root cause of AGW and other systemic problems is.

[Bob Wallace]

The reason why we are experiencing global warming is because we adopted widespread use of fossil fuels without fully understanding the problem we were creating.

That is the root cause.

We found an energy source that we could put to work and we used it.

Do you agree with me that a problem can't be solved, unless the problem is fully understood?

We solve problems without fully understanding them.  We prevent and cure diseases without knowing everything about the disease or without fully knowing how a particular pharmaceutical product works.

We can be very empirical and just determine "Do this and that happens" and use that finding to solve a problem. 

You can promote green technology, while at the same time admitting that it's not enough, and that the system must change, so that the technology can satisfy the demands.

Or you can promote green technology with some degree of confidence that we have, in hand, the technology to replace almost all fossil fuel use.  And that over a moderate number of years we can incrementally remove fossil fuels from our lives.

Of course, we can also ridicule or forbid any talk of systemic changes,

We certainly can talk about potentially better forms of government.  You could start a thread.  But, realistically, a global change in governance is not in our foreseeable future and, if it were to ever occur, would be too late to stop extreme climate change.

And going change governments (the system) -> cut fossil fuel use is an incremental approach.

[Bob Wallace]

Neven, please start a thread on better forms of government.  I'm assuming that's what you mean by 'the system'.

Tell us your ideas for how the world should be run, if that is what you are thinking about.

[Neven]

I've basically already said everything I have to say (in a nutshell), and I've said it elsewhere many times.

We could discuss it some more, but as I've said, if we don't agree on what the root cause of AGW - being one of the symptoms that threaten human civilisation - is, and if we don't agree that a problem can only be solved if we fully understand it, and thus not just fight the symptoms, but take away the root cause as well, we both end up frustrated. This thread is an example of that.

I'd rather just appreciate your positive message and your updates on advancements in green technology, and look for the other parts of the solution elsewhere.

[SteveMDFP]

Maybe I'm unimaginative, but I can only think of one "solution" that's feasible and likely to be effective.  A global treaty establishing a minimum carbon tax/price everywhere.   A commission would establish the initial amount, and escalate year-by-year according to evolving research.

Non-signatories or violators could be faced with tariffs on their exports to negate any economic advantage from not complying.  Such nations would see that the tariffs would be gathered by the importing nations -- they'd surely rather collect that revenue for themselves.

So we'd only need a critical mass of participating nations to promote universal adoption.

Yeah, it's Hansen's preferred solution, not original.  But I've not heard folks urging this as a multi-national, global treaty.

Sadly, the world seems less and less capable of cooperating across national borders.  I'm not optimistic.

[Bob Wallace]

if we don't agree on what the root cause of AGW - being one of the symptoms that threaten human civilisation

Humor me.  What is this root cause of which you speak? 

Are there any countries not impacted by this root cause problem?

[Sigmetnow]

...

I'd rather just appreciate your positive message and your updates on advancements in green technology, and look for the other parts of the solution elsewhere.

Sounds perfect.  I think what may have driven Bob to start this thread is constantly being stepped on for suggesting a green solution, because “it doesn’t solve the AGW problem.”  As everyone seems to agree, there isn’t one solution that solves the AGW problem.  So, holding a green tech idea to that standard makes no sense.

[Bob Wallace]

I think what may have driven Bob to start this thread is constantly being stepped on for suggesting a green solution because “it doesn’t solve the AGW problem.”

What has mainly driven me to start this thread is getting slammed because what we are doing hasn't yet solved the problem or won't solve the problem in a very short time.

What I've been doing (as have others) is bringing to the table developments that will speed the abandonment of fossil fuels and news of when progress quickens.  It does piss me off when people go all negative over that information while having no alternative of any value to add.

Some people seem to hold the belief that there's some ill-defined "force" that were we to trigger it all our problems would go away.  Without a workable plan to put the force in action they have nothing to offer.  Except to criticise those who don't accept their belief system.

[Sigmetnow]

I think what may have driven Bob to start this thread is constantly being stepped on for suggesting a green solution because “it doesn’t solve the AGW problem.”

What has mainly driven me to start this thread is getting slammed because what we are doing hasn't yet solved the problem or won't solve the problem in a very short time.

What I've been doing (as have others) is bringing to the table developments that will speed the abandonment of fossil fuels and news of when progress quickens.  It does piss me off when people go all negative over that information while having no alternative of any value to add.

Some people seem to hold the belief that there's some ill-defined "force" that were we to trigger it all our problems would go away.  Without a workable plan to put the force in action they have nothing to offer.  Except to criticise those who don't accept their belief system.

Agree with your first two paragraphs.

Perhaps the difficulty with the folks as described in your third paragraph is that they do not adequately understand the green tech solutions being offered (although they are quite certain they do, because they are “engineers,” etc.), so they naturally do not think it will work, and any suggestion that it will seems foolish to them.  They don’t know what they don’t know.  And no, I’m not saying that those offering a solution know everything, either!

Edit:  Difference between being open-minded and being closed-minded?

Later edit: 
Example:  Daimler engages what I assume are its brightest automotive engineers to design a big electric truck.  They do so, and it has a range of 250 miles.

A short time later, Tesla reveals a bigger truck, with a range of 500 miles.  Daimler’s response?  “That can’t be; it defies the laws of physics.”

Of course it doesn’t.  Tesla merely has technology that Daimler does not.

[RealityCheck]

It seems to me that the posts so far on this topic could be described as 'furiously agreeing with each other', if you look at it from a certain point of view. Humanity is not doing enough, fast enough, to avert significant (catastrophic?) impacts on the planet from our activities. For myself, I find myself having a 'rabbit in the headlights' feeling sometimes when looking at data posted in the ASIF. 

So, to address the topic:  I am going to answer the question in Irish fashion, with another question. What if we could reduce waste primary energy, from over 80% to less than 20%? In other words, get 5 to 10 times more useful work from burning fuels, of whatever type? If this could be done fairly quickly (c. 5-10 years) using established technologies combined in a creative way, we might 'buy time' to find even better technologies / methods to transit to a sustainable energy system.

I am collaborating on such a system / technology at present. I work in an applied technology innovation centre. I would appreciate  constructive / positive input or thoughts. Thanks.

[Neven]

Except to criticise those who don't accept their belief system.

And vice versa. 

if we don't agree on what the root cause of AGW - being one of the symptoms that threaten human civilisation

Humor me.  What is this root cause of which you speak?

You touched upon it in the battery thread. It has to do with human nature, the bad side of it to be more specific. The system is a reflection of it and thus emphasizes it.

Basically, what you get - once checks put in place by religion, culture and society fail - is unfettered greed in the form of people trying to profit off others at all costs. Hence consumer culture and myriads of (not always visible) addictions, to siphon off value and put it in the hands of ever fewer people. This system that has emerged is now master over everyone, both the poor and the rich, because it dictates that the best way to grow the possessions of the few is to use a flawed economic system with arbitrary rules that defy the laws of nature, positing that growth is always good, knows no limits, and effects can simply be externalized at zero cost.

This basically forces the majority of the global population into slavery and addiction, while ever more free environmental services (resources, clean air, fertile land, water) are exploited, to create the value that can then be siphoned off to the growing mountains of concentrated wealth.

Of course, greed has to do with spiritual shallowness and fear of death. You cannot force enlightenment upon people, but you can try to curb the excesses of the bad side of human nature. You can stop the mountains of concentrated wealth to grow by putting a cap on how much individuals can own, because this is what's driving every planetary problem we face, from financial bubbles to resource wars, from affluenza to AGW, from top soil erosion to ocean acidification.

How do you do that? First you talk about it, then you fight for it. Rosa Parks didn't spontaneously decide to sit in front of the bus. And if you manage to bring about some sort of change, only then do you have a chance for things like green technology and carbon taxes to work.

You can't solve these problems, while simultaneously allowing a race between Bezos, Buffett and Gates to that first trillion. It's simply impossible.

So, turbines, solar panels, EVs? Great. But in themselves not enough.

Are there any countries not impacted by this root cause problem?

Of course not. It has gone planetary this time. But it's the same story we've seen played out many times before.

[Shared Humanity]

Thought I'd stop by and check the thread out...have fun guys.

[gerontocrat]

If a non-incremental solution to - AGW, habitat destruction, soil degradation, water resources depletion, plastic waste proliferation, the 6th Mass Extinction et al -  is not forthcoming and implemented sooner rather than later, then the future is not looking good for existing life on earth.

And if you are under 50, this does not mean your grandchildren, or your children, this includes you.

[ivica]

"This is a challenge of epochal proportions."

[Sebastian Jones]

Neven, quite a ways upthread, wrote:
 "Do you agree with me that a problem can't be solved, unless the problem is fully understood? "
The thing is, AGW is not simply a problem, it is a wicked, even  a super wicked problem. Wicked problems- which among other characteristics, change as a result  of efforts to solve them- cannot be "solved", they can only be addressed. The process is a bit like Adaptive Management- try something, evaluate, try again etc.
Therefore, Bob, there cannot be a non-incremental solution to AGW.
I hear your frustration with those who reject incremental solutions.....

[Neven]

I hear your frustration with those who reject incremental solutions.....

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not reject incremental solutions. I'm just saying that they cannot solve the problem (of which AGW is only a symptom), unless systemic changes are made.

I don't know, but maybe this is also part of the conflict: the strawmen that are put up as soon as you say that the technological solutions in themselves aren't enough, or if you say the numbers are incorrect.

[Bob Wallace]

So, turbines, solar panels, EVs? Great. But in themselves not enough.

Since this site is basically about Arctic Sea Ice melt and this section about solutions to the global warming problem that is causing the ice to melt let me suggest that turbines, solar panels, EVs and some other things we have in hand are enough. 

We know at a high degree of certainty that we can replace essentially all fossil fuel use for electricity.  We know that we can power almost all, if not all, land transportation with green electricity.  We have a decent shot at powering air travel with batteries and/or biofuel/synfuel. 

The only uncracked nut is oceanic shipping.  Of course a great piece of that problem goes away with the disappearance of oil, coal and natural gas.  We have some workable ideas for the rest but it would probably take some governmental action to put them in place.  Or perhaps solid lithium batteries will be developed and we could use battery power.

I think it would be a good idea if those overwhelmed with angst find another outlet to discuss the flaws of the human race.  Perhaps sit in a darkened basement, lit by a single candle,  and sip absinthe. 

But here, let's simply recognize that human flaws exist and see how we might engineer around them.

[Bob Wallace]

If a non-incremental solution to - AGW, habitat destruction, soil degradation, water resources depletion, plastic waste proliferation, the 6th Mass Extinction et al -  is not forthcoming and implemented sooner rather than later, then the future is not looking good for existing life on earth.

Or...

If a rapid enough incremental solution to - AGW, habitat destruction, soil degradation, water resources depletion, plastic waste proliferation, the 6th Mass Extinction et al -  is not forthcoming and implemented sooner rather than later, then the future is not looking good for existing life on earth.

[Sigmetnow]

I hear your frustration with those who reject incremental solutions.....

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not reject incremental solutions. I'm just saying that they cannot solve the problem (of which AGW is only a symptom), unless systemic changes are made.

I don't know, but maybe this is also part of the conflict: the strawmen that are put up as soon as you say that the technological solutions in themselves aren't enough, or if you say the numbers are incorrect.

What if incremental technological changes lead to systemic changes?

Example:  widespread cell phone availability in Africa led to new kinds of electronic banking which led to new business opportunities and loans for green tech which improved living standards of many of the poorest people there.

[Bob Wallace]

What if we could reduce waste primary energy, from over 80% to less than 20%? In other words, get 5 to 10 times more useful work from burning fuels, of whatever type? If this could be done fairly quickly (c. 5-10 years) using established technologies combined in a creative way, we might 'buy time' to find even better technologies / methods to transit to a sustainable energy system.

That sounds interesting and I'd like to know more about it.

My initial thought is, assuming it works, would it move us forward faster or might it delay the move to a 100% renewable energy system? 

[Bob Wallace]

I'm just saying that they cannot solve the problem (of which AGW is only a symptom), unless systemic changes are made.

You are still talking a way that I cannot understand.

We are likely to move to renewable energy for electricity simply based on economics.  (I'm not talking about speed, just where we are likely to end up.)

We are likely to move to electricity powered ground transportation simply based on economics.

No system modification needed.  The invisible hand of the market will give fossil fuels the finger.

Do you disagree with this?  If so, can you describe what it is about 'the system' that will prevent it from happening?

[Neven]

I think it would be a good idea if those overwhelmed with angst find another outlet to discuss the flaws of the human race.  Perhaps sit in a darkened basement, lit by a single candle,  and sip absinthe.

I think that this is what is causing the 'slamming', not the updates on green technology.

[Bob Wallace]

Well, create a "Share your angst" forum....   

[Archimid]

There is no such thing as non-incremental change. All change requires a tick of time and time can be subdivided until a jiffy is reached.

So if by non incremental change  you mean extremely fast change the quickest solution to global warming is to set off multiple nuclear explosions in places with lots of fuel and particulate to throw up into the upper atmosphere. All the tools required to implement this almost instant solution to global warming are already available. The only thing requiered is for someone to press the red button.

Of course, this solves global warming but it might also end life as we know it. So probably not a good solution.

Another possible solution that could be seemingly non incremental is for all governments of the world to prohibit combustion except for the cases where aerosol emissions outweighs carbon emissions. That would inmidiatly result in a drop in CO2 concentrations. It will also end the world as we know it for anyone who depends on fossil fuels for food or water.  Once again probably not a good solution and probably impossible in any practical sense.

[Sigmetnow]

Giant asteroid? 

[Archimid]

I thought about it, but we have no control over asteroids.

[Bob Wallace]

I thought about it, but we have no control over asteroids.

Come on, Bruce Willis is still working.  This time he could install a pusher rocket and ride the asteroid home.

[Neven]

Well, create a "Share your angst" forum....   

Or you stop lashing out with sarcasm and arrogance as soon as someone critiques your everything-will-sort-itself-out-by-itself-theories. Again, I appreciate the positivism and updates on green technology, but the victim-playing is starting to wear thin.

The invisible hand of the market will give fossil fuels the finger.

There we have it. The invisible hand of decades of conditioning. 

What if incremental technological changes lead to systemic changes?

It's possible and it will be interesting to see where automation and AI lead to: Total enslavement or more freedom for the many.

But if it's the latter, it will be because more and more people have been talking about it, educating themselves and each other about how the system works (creating perpetual, exponential growth to siphon off value to add to mountain of concentrated wealth), and then demanding changes, convincing the (ultra-)rich that it is also better for them if the system is changed.

Just like if AGW ever gets solved through green technology, it is because of environmentalists and scientists having talked about it and spreading awareness, demanding changes. Of course, climate risk deniers will say that it all happened by itself and there was thus never a problem to begin with. The invisible hand and so on.

If we don't talk about it, or ridicule/try to shut up those who say that superficial solving of symptoms isn't enough because it doesn't address the root cause, it might not happen or happen later than it could have. Just like with AGW.

[Bob Wallace]

Or you stop lashing out with sarcasm and arrogance as soon as someone critiques your everything-will-sort-itself-out-by-itself-theories. Again, I appreciate the positivism and updates on green technology, but the victim-playing is starting to wear thin.

I never consider myself to be a victim nor do I think that I've ever played the victim. 

But I do admit having a low tolerance for fools.  When some pontificating bag of wind starts spouting off I do have a tendency to offer a deflating poke.  But I'll try to curtail that in the future.

It's possible and it will be interesting to see where automation and AI lead to: Total enslavement or more freedom for the many.

If we discuss it ahead of time we stand a better chance of avoiding ending up with the stinky end of the stick.  It is a bit hard to figure out how automation could turn us into slaves.  With automation our labor would not be needed.  And I doubt the machines would desire us to entertain them or peel them grapes.

There we have it. The invisible hand of decades of conditioning.

May I respectfully request you return to and reread my comment in its entirety?  Pay attention to the word "speed", in particular.

[Neven]

May I respectfully request you return to and reread my comment in its entirety?  Pay attention to the word "speed", in particular.

Sure, and may I then respectfully request you to ponder the fact that we are all fools, and that the only difference between fools is that some are aware of the fact that they are fools and others aren't?

[Bob Wallace]

May I respectfully request you return to and reread my comment in its entirety?  Pay attention to the word "speed", in particular.

Sure, and may I then respectfully request you to ponder the fact that we are all fools, and that the only difference between fools is that some are aware of the fact that they are fools and others aren't?

Your 'we' is a subset of the universe of people.

[Neven]

QED.

[oren]

This round-and-round discussion will go on forever it seems. There is no progress in such discussions towards a common ground and "agreeing on what we disagree". The terminology is fluid, the claims are thrown past each other, this is really tiring.
For example, I do not think "ban the use of thermal coal" is a solution, as where is the person/entity who will do the banning? But if I say so, folks here may say - but because you say so it won't happen. Me being a "realist" thinks otherwise, but I think we will just have to disagree and move on. Trying to put a foot in this mess will invariably cause one to be covered in mud.
I think there is big camp here (co-led by our moderator) that engages in "magical thinking" of a different sort - that some social/cultural change will come along and solve the problem. That is a solution of sorts, in that it does have some chance of actually occurring, though i'm not sure at what timeline and if this will be an effective solution. But honestly I don't think the chance of it happening is controlled by Bob's posts, so I can't understand the personal drive of so many here to hit back at Bob for claiming this won't happen and focusing on other solutions.
Bob - to you I also recommend avoiding the "hitting back" part. It's not contributing to the discussion.
In general, this personal/emotional level has been harming the forum for quite a while, and did I mention it all began with the political threads? Oh right, I did.

To this thread I say - had there been a real solution to the problem of AGW, and to the whole wider set of carrying capacity issues hinted by Neven, it would have been deployed already. All solutions touted around are extremely partial in that they either don't solve the problem (at all/fast enough), or they won't get implemented (at all/fast enough). So anyone coming up with any kind of idea/progress can be immediately shown to be wrong. Can we agree that this is the case, and let people discuss their partial solutions/ideas/progress without being rained on with personal comments all the time?

Personally I expect civilizational collapse to arrive mid-century as payment for AGW and carrying capacity issues. Bob's solutions won't prevent it, sigmet's hopes won't help, but neither will Neven's hopes help. The sad thing is of course that the problems are still physically solvable. But the equations governing human group behavior are very strong in the short term, and the timeline is very short. Despite holding very strongly to this opinion, I don't consider anyone who says otherwise a fool.
Now that I put that out in the open, I'd like to read this forum with all these varying opinions and learn a whole lot. So can we please lay off the childish personal insults?

[Neven]

I don't know about hope, but it is my personal conviction that...

I'm not going to repeat myself again. 

BTW, I've opened a poll for all you magical thinkers out there.

[BenB]

Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting anyone here, but I see the heart of this dispute as being between people who believe that the main solutions to the problems we face are technological/engineering ones, and those who believe that the most important solutions are political.

Of course everyone on here would recognise that politics and technology both play a part, but it comes down to whether we can tweak the current political system and rely on improved technology, or whether we need to make more fundamental changes to the system.

There seems to be a tendency for both sides to consider that the other side isn't really looking for a solution at all, and that they are burying their heads in the sand. I think both approaches are legitimate, and the argument should be over which is likely to be most effective.

More on topic: I think the sudden introduction of a very high carbon tax is as close as we can get to a non-incremental solution, as it would quickly would reduce trade, transport, tourism, economic activity in general, as well as encouraging renewables, public transport, walking/cycling, more sustainable urban planning, etc. That doesn't mean it's advisable, or even possible without first changing the political framework...

[Sigmetnow]

...
More on topic: I think the sudden introduction of a very high carbon tax is as close as we can get to a non-incremental solution, as it would quickly would reduce trade, transport, tourism, economic activity in general, as well as encouraging renewables, public transport, walking/cycling, more sustainable urban planning, etc. That doesn't mean it's advisable, or even possible without first changing the political framework...

The wheels are turning....

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1068.msg160577.html#msg160577

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1006.msg160796.html#msg160796

[Tor Bejnar]

... a very high carbon tax is as close as we can get to a non-incremental solution, ...

How about a global tariffs war? This will shut everything down.  I hate to think my country's President has the solution to AGW in hand!

[Sigmetnow]

Perhaps a metaphor would help?

No significant computer program is written in one step.  It takes planning, collaboration, half-steps, evaluating files, reconfiguring, rewriting, occasional crashes, and happy accidents.  The final product, getting from here to there, is complex.  And full of parts that could be done differently, more efficiently, or more quickly.

“A ten-thousand li journey begins by putting the foot down.”

[zizek]

Why bother discussing the merits of incrementalism when it has already failed?

How long ago has it been since climate change has been understood? And in the mainstream discourse? The 80s, 90s? How far has incrementalism gotten us in the last three decades? We’ve almost doubled the amount of emissions in the atmosphere. Littered our oceans. And destroyed much of our soil.

It’s simply too late for incrementalism. Because a significant part of the world will feel the devastation of climate change. Incrementalism is only a concept that serves wealthy nations.  An idea that justifies the costly lifestyle of westerners, while simultaneously ignoring the grim reality for the rest of the world.

Try doing this.

Go to Bangladesh and talk to the people that are about to get their communities swallowed by the sea and tell them this:
“Hey, sorry that your entire life is about to be washed away. Don’t worry, once Elon builds me an electric car everything will be fine.  Thanks for the shirt by-the-way, it fits perfect. Barely cost me anything”

Or go talk to an inuit person whose community is sinking into the permafrost:
“hey, sorry your way of life is being evaporated into the atmosphere. Don’t worry though, natural gas plants are replacing coal plants. Thanks for all the land by-the-way. Didn’t cost us anything”

This is incrementalism: I will not make any substantial sacrifices to combat climate change. The economic system that supports my lifestyle is sacred and must not be changed.  And the suffering of exploited persons is an acceptable sacrifice to the problem.

----------------

Incrementalism has more challenges than just technological fixes. It is the political and social implications of maintaining the status quo.

Incrementalism is liberalism. The idea that our society can make progressive change while maintaining existing class structure. Liberalism worked great in the post-war era when we had essentially unlimited resources and labour to exploit. Liberalism requires stability. Something that is no longer being afforded to us. Our economy and environment are quickly deteriorating. And liberalism does not have the proper tools to deal with our current challenges.

Do you think that the rise of right wing extremism is simply a passing phase? Do you believe trump became president by accident?

Will the climate change induced refugees make the world a better or worse place? Do you think the nationalist will have a change of heart when they have millions of coloured people knocking on their door?

Dealing with millions of refugees is not something that is done ‘incrementally’. You either open your arms or you don’t.

The world is convulsing. And liberalism and ‘incrementalism’ is not equipped to handle this type of crisis.  It is the extremes that will prevail. Reactionary vs. equality. Fascism vs. Socialism.   It is the arrogance of western exceptionalism that our societies are impervious to hate. The faster you realize that the redistribution of wealth is the only option solving the crisis, the less likely we are to degenerate into fascism.  And I can give you countless examples in history where the ‘incrementalists’ (Liberals) either cowardly kept their mouths shut or joined the fascists.


Today is the day you decide to be on the right side of history. Hindsight will buy you nothing.

[Bruce Steele]

Two things, Time and being earnest
  We have only very few decades to do one of two things.
We figure out how to convert all technology to renewable energy sources and figure out how to power atmospheric carbon capture
 or convert back into subsistence agriculture... all of us.
Subsistence farming has the advantage of ten thousand years of trial and error already accrued .
Agriculture is the only way we know that we can currently sink tens of gigatonnes of atmospheric carbon.
There are millions of people who live and farm and survive without emitting >2 tons CO2 per year
They don't fly around the world on annual vacations
They don't have a/c
They don't have cars

Pity that we don't honor them
So if I had one giant change it would be we honored the poor dirt farmer and wanted to be like them.