Non-incremental Solutions for Global Warming

[magnamentis]

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.

i slightly but significantly disagree, IMO the root cause is the cause that made humanity adopt widespread use of fossil fuel.

IMO that root cause is GREEED

and the increase in population which in part is even assisted by the availability of such energy sources gives us the "coup de grace"

just imagine that mix of 7, 8, 9 or 10 billion greedy animals (word used on purpose, it's even biblical) and the even bigger part fighting for survival and trying to prosper (reach the levels of the greedy)

no way that this won't lead to doom of some kind while i'm not necessarily talking about extinction like others do but a huge death toll a believe is imminent any time soon and it will come more or less overnight because it will take a trigger event.

the 2008+ financial crises was closer to being that trigger than many know, just a few weeks no money at  ATMs and empty shelves in supermarkets and the sh...t hits the fan

[Bob Wallace]

Let's start by remembering -

Time is of the essence.

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.

I don't think the hope of a social/cultural change is magical thinking.  But after 50 years involved in ecological issues I think a major social/cultural change is not likely to happen soon.

I think the change will continue to happen gradually, accelerating as the climate problem becomes more painful.  If we wait until society pushes us off fossil fuels we may well be lost.

Thinking that we need to change society first will, I'm afraid, lead us to extreme climate change.

I'll change my opinion if someone can produce a way to very rapidly change the world's population to the point where climate change is at the top of their "Must Do Now" lists.

[Bob Wallace]

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.

Go stand on the sidewalk for a day and see how many people you can convince to give up their present lives and live the life of a poor dirt farmer.

Yes, if we quit riding, flying, using electricity, etc. we could solve the climate change problem.  But you must realize that will not happen.

Perhaps you don't realize that poor dirt farmers desire to have more, to go places and see things.  They do not live a life of free if wishes for a better, more comfortable lifestyle.

[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.

i slightly but significantly disagree, IMO the root cause is the cause that made humanity adopt widespread use of fossil fuel.

IMO that root cause is GREEED

and the increase in population which in part is even assisted by the availability of such energy sources gives us the "coup de grace"

just imagine that mix of 7, 8, 9 or 10 billion greedy animals (word used on purpose, it's even biblical) and the even bigger part fighting for survival and trying to prosper (reach the levels of the greedy)

no way that this won't lead to doom of some kind while i'm not necessarily talking about extinction like others do but a huge death toll a believe is imminent any time soon and it will come more or less overnight because it will take a trigger event.

the 2008+ financial crises was closer to being that trigger than many know, just a few weeks no money at  ATMs and empty shelves in supermarkets and the sh...t hits the fan

Many of the people who turn their lights on at night, drive their cars to work, and heat their houses with oil or natural gas are not on the greedy end of the population distribution.

The desire for energy to produce food and goods and the desire for a comfortable life led us to use the most convenient energy source we had. 

While the greedy (the wealthiest) may have the largest personal footprint if we wiped them out it would create only a tiny drop in GHG emissions.

[zizek]

I don't think the hope of a social/cultural change is magical thinking.  But after 50 years involved in ecological issues I think a major social/cultural change is not likely to happen soon.

That's great Bob. I know people who've profited immensely off of oil sands and claim to be environmentalists.
Your wisdom doesn't mean anything to me. Of course you don't think social/cultural change is not likely to happen, because you've spent your entire life preventing it.
You are rich bob. You have the most to lose if there's a radical shift in society. You, your family, your friends, and your colleagues are the greatest beneficiaries of the system that you so dutifully protect. How could you ever change your mind? Are you gonna start telling your millionaire friends they should redistribute their estate's wealth? You'd be exile

I've spent enough time on ecological issues that a major social/cultural change could happen. But it's bourgeoisie assholes like yourself that get in the way.

[Shared Humanity]

ASILurker....

Thank you for comment 480. It could not have been said any better. I would have quoted it but did not want to fill up a page while having nothing else to offer other than to encourage everyone to read this comment very slowly. Mull it over and consider its premise and implications.

[Shared Humanity]

So...since I already believe comment 480 is explaining the only approach that will get us out of this mess, I will play this game.

Goal: Ban all coal generation of electricity by 2028.

Is this possible?

Do we have the requisite technology?

Mostly.

Where gaps in technology exist, do we have the knowledge and research capabilities to solve them?

For Goddess's sake we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years!

So, what is stopping us?

[Bob Wallace]

So, what is stopping us?

Us.

[Bruce Steele]

Bob, "  u must realize that will not happen. "
I think it will happen . It will happen after all the techno utopian experiments have resulted in failure, it will happen after  we have reduced earths carrying capacity much below it's current capacity. There will be many many fewer of us and we won't have any other options left.
 Poor dirt farmers will inherit the wreckage of your want because you fail to disintegrate want and need. You fail to give other living creatures their chance at life again because of a choice between wants and needs. Your wants over their needs. BAU

[Bob Wallace]

The comment you cropped was -

"Yes, if we quit riding, flying, using electricity, etc. we could solve the climate change problem.  But you must realize that will not happen."

Will not happen soon enough to avoid extreme climate change.

[magnamentis]

Many of the people who turn their lights on at night, drive their cars to work, and heat their houses with oil or natural gas are not on the greedy end of the population distribution.

The desire for energy to produce food and goods and the desire for a comfortable life led us to use the most convenient energy source we had. 

While the greedy (the wealthiest) may have the largest personal footprint if we wiped them out it would create only a tiny drop in GHG emissions.

i fully agree while this point has to do with the availability of such energy which i already hinted at. of course, once the energy is available as a money making machine for the wealthiest it's understandable that everyone want o make us of the short term benefits. nothing one can blame many and the poorer the less one can blame them.

who could blame a fisherman in africa that he prefered once and now has to use a CE to survive or live better other than rowing like before.

who can blame a desert tribe that they start to pump water with CEs other than moving to a place where is still water (after the level of ground water is sinking, caused by industrial farming and populations increase causing the need for food and water)

etc.

i'm not blaming them but in each case the cause when narrowed down to the very end is competitive thinking resulting in greed and exploitation.

no disagreement really that i can feel here, just all a bit about terms and thinking patterns often based on personal experience.

all this to be discussed more thoroughly would fill entire libraries and would hence be TLTR here.

[Bob Wallace]

Dale Ross is the Republican mayor of Georgetown, Texas. 

Georgetown's grid is almost 100% renewable. 

"This was first and foremost a business decision and if you win the business argument, then you're gonna win the environmental argument," Ross said.

"It's a totally different landscape out there," he said. "And let me tell you, in the state of Texas, since January 1, four coal plants have closed. This is the economics of the matter. You buy wind and solar for, say, $18 a megawatt. You buy coal for $25. You have that choice. Which one are you gonna buy?"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-leader-in-renewable-energy-wind-turbines/

[Tor Bejnar]

I'm pretty sure Shared Humanity is referring to Reply #52.

[RealityCheck]

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?

In my opinion it will encourage faster RE deployment since it involves an integrated multifactor system. There is a solid thermodynamics basis underpinning the system. See www.ngenie.co and their associated youtube videos.

[Bob Wallace]

The ngenie link is not working.

And could we please not ask others to go watch some video without a synopsis and reason why we might want to spend time looking at a visual presentation?

What is this idea?

What evidence is there that it is workable?

Is there any evidence  that it works in the real world?  And, if so, what is the likely real world price?

[Shared Humanity]

While the greedy (the wealthiest) may have the largest personal footprint if we wiped them out it would create only a tiny drop in GHG emissions.

You may believe that greed is not a legitimate topic for discussion when trying to solve AGW but you are very wrong.

http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/TOP-20-Consumer-per-capita#tspQvChart

The U.S. has the 10th highest per capita energy consumption on the planet. This is misleading too as we have exported the manufacture of many goods overseas where they get built cheaply for us. Energy consumption is directly related to GDP and the projection of our imperial might is intended to keep things just the way they are. Americans are greedy and we intend to continue to consume far more of our share of resources because we like our nice things.

This divide between the "have's" and "have not's" is a major topic of discussion in climate talks and at the U.N. So, the leaders of nations realize this needs to be considered but you would prefer to not have this discussed here because it....what? Offends you? Makes you uncomfortable?

[wili]

"While the greedy (the wealthiest) may have the largest personal footprint if we wiped them out it would create only a tiny drop in GHG emissions."

I'm not an advocate for wiping anyone out, but if you mean by 'the wealthiest' the riches 10% globally, 'tiny drop' is a pretty gross understatement.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam

But poorest half of world’s people contribute to just 10% of emissions...

[Bob Wallace]

You may believe that greed is not a legitimate topic for discussion when trying to solve AGW but you are very wrong.

The greedist are, generally, the wealthiest.  Wealthy people exist in most countries.  There's the guy in India who has built himself a 30+ story home.

World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam

Based on that data I will change my claim -

"While the greedy (the wealthiest) may have the largest personal footprint if we wiped them out it would create only a small drop in GHG emissions."

We can discuss the wealthiest.  Do you have a workable way to eliminate them?  One that has even a slight chance of being implemented?

This divide between the "have's" and "have not's" is a major topic of discussion in climate talks and at the U.N. So, the leaders of nations realize this needs to be considered but you would prefer to not have this discussed here because it....what? Offends you? Makes you uncomfortable?

I've said absolutely zero about avoiding any discussion concerning the haves and have nots.  That is something you seem to have created in your own mind. 

There are a number of you posting here (Neven included) who seem to have attributed things to me that simply are not true.  Your statement is one.  Earlier today someone claimed that I believed that technology will save us, which is also not true.

[wili]

Bob wrote:

"While the greedy (the wealthiest) may have the largest personal footprint if we wiped them out it would create only a small drop in GHG emissions."

Soooo, you consider 50% to be a 'tiny drop'?

And you are the one who brought up wiping them out. I specifically said I was against wiping anyone out. But if you are going to bring up a hypothetical, you should at least do the five-seconds worth of research needed to see if it is based on actual facts.

I actually often agree with you, but I can see why people get frustrated interacting with you if this is how you deal with those questioning your faulty stats and logic.

[RealityCheck]

The ngenie link is not working.

And could we please not ask others to go watch some video without a synopsis and reason why we might want to spend time looking at a visual presentation?

What is this idea?

What evidence is there that it is workable?

Is there any evidence  that it works in the real world?  And, if so, what is the likely real world price?

Nice...
My typo. ngeni.co.
Now, over and out. Get over yourself.

[Bob Wallace]

Sorry, I misread the statement.

But let's back up.  When you talk about the world's 10% wealthiest you aren't talking about truly wealthy people.  You're talking about people living middle class lives.

On a global scale, just 13 percent of the world's population could be considered middle income in 2011

Pew Research Center.

When I was talking about 'the wealthiest' earlier I was talking about the truly wealthy.  The very rich.  I missed the shift from very rich to middle class.

[Bob Wallace]

The ngenie link is not working.

And could we please not ask others to go watch some video without a synopsis and reason why we might want to spend time looking at a visual presentation?

What is this idea?

What evidence is there that it is workable?

Is there any evidence  that it works in the real world?  And, if so, what is the likely real world price?

Nice...
My typo. ngeni.co.
Now, over and out. Get over yourself.

Here is the total information given on the site you link -

We offer our customers to transition their business and/or homes, rapidly and very affordably, from their extremely inefficient and expensive, near total dependence on energy derived from fossil resources to energy 100% derived from sustainable solar resources.

We do this without requiring heavy handed government interventions (e.g. carbon taxes, tradable credits, preferential feed-in tariffs, etc.) and at overall costs that are substantially lower than fossil based supplies.

Sounds like just another solar installation company to me.

Does that give you any clue about why people might not like getting naked links?  In this case there was no meat in the sandwich.  There wasn't even a piece of lettuce.  You just wasted the time of every person who opened your nothing-burger link.

[sidd]

1) there is a difference between income and wealth

2)From Pew, global middle income is defined as " upper-middle income on $20.01-50, and high income on more than $50; " These numbers are income/day in 2011 US$

http://www.pewglobal.org/interactives/global-population-by-income/

For chapter and verse on distribution of wealth and income, see the thread on Economic Inequality.

see, e.g

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2143.msg131254.html#msg131254

 There is data in that thread for many different countries.

Defining the middle class at upper 10% of income is ... quite wrong.

But i suggest discussion of this topic move to the quoted thread.

sidd

[wili]

Pretty much no one considers themselves 'very rich' (except our president!), because they can almost always point to someone richer than themselves. There are studies of this phenomenon, but I can't put my finger on them right now.

GW is of course a global phenomenon, so global stats seem the most relevant. If you want to restrict it to the global top .00001%, that's fine, but you should have specified as much.

Even there, though: http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/

The World's 8 Richest Men Are Now as Wealthy as Half the World's Population

Some of the most careful footprint calculators I know of point out that if you were going to simplify it down to one number, wealth would, for most people, be the surest predictor of environmental and carbon footprint...

[Bob Wallace]

I'm not sure that this work to distinguish who is rich vs. who is wealthy vs. who is middle class gets us anywhere.

Some people have higher carbon footprints than do other. 

People living in Europe, Canada, the US, and other "developed" countries generally have much higher carbon footprints than to people living in "underdeveloped" countries.  Clearly it is more important to get a large carbon footprint person to cut their carbon (and overall GHG) output than someone with a small carbon footprint.

Now, how do we accomplish a carbon reduction for those high footprint people?

Plus, people living in underdeveloped countries are, generally, improving their lifestyle.  How do we prevent them from adding to the CO2/GHG problem while allowing them to enjoy a more comfortable life?

I think we've reached a majority decision that there are no workable "push this button", non-incremental solutions.  We're going to have to slog this thing out one step at a time.  Shouldn't we quit the attacks on incrementalism and start working on how to make the steps larger/faster?

[Shared Humanity]

I'm pretty sure Shared Humanity is referring to Reply #52.

Yes.

[Shared Humanity]

Sorry, I misread the statement.

But let's back up.  When you talk about the world's 10% wealthiest you aren't talking about truly wealthy people.  You're talking about people living middle class lives.

On a global scale, just 13 percent of the world's population could be considered middle income in 2011

Pew Research Center.

When I was talking about 'the wealthiest' earlier I was talking about the truly wealthy.  The very rich.  I missed the shift from very rich to middle class.

Only in your mind could the wealthiest 10% on the planet be called the middle class.

[wili]

From Bob's apparent source:

On a global scale, just 13 percent of the world’s population could be considered middle income in 2011, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of the most recently available data. Most people in the world were either low income (56 percent) or poor (15 percent), while only 9 percent lived at an upper-middle-income standard and 7 percent were high income.

This clearly does not say that the top ten percent are middle class. The top 7% they rank as 'high income.' The middle class doesn't start till you get to the group from about 17% to 30%.

(Is this guy completely innumerate, or a bad reader, or does he just like to try to throw sand in people's eyes when the discussion doesn't seem to be supporting his unsupported assumptions?)

[oren]

Who's got anytime left to even use an idea like Ban Thermal Coal as a "thought experiment" and see what might pop up when there's all good time winning arguments and scoring points to be had by all?

Bob asks a really high quality question probably without even meaning to. He assumed there are no suitable answers when he asked it. What if he's wrong? 

What is the #1 GHG emitter, global warming forcing agent, and air pollution / poor health contributor, early death causing energy source on the planet today and for the last 250 years? Any ideas? Go on, take a stab, guess.

Hold that thought. Let it sit.

Now, logically speaking, scientifically speaking, ethically and morally speaking please think of a valid reason not to quickly move to Ban it's use - given what we now know today?

What's more dangerous to human life? DDT or Coal use the last few hundred years?

Hold those thoughts. Let them sit.

Do not think of a single thing other than the positive long term and immediate impacts from that one single act of a wolrd that has Banned Thermal Coal globally - what does it look like - what would it need to look like for that to have happened? 

Hold those thoughts. Let them sit.

If you really wish to solve and intractable long term complex embedded problem you must be willing and able to think differently. And approach the problem from a completely different perspective than how it has been viewed to now.

It does not matter whether banning coal is the right or wrong solution or can or can't be done -- what matters is being to THINK about it with an open creative brainstorming POSITIVE way where there are no constraints no rules where there are no walls and where there are no nos you cannot do that!

A response to the famed post #52:
I held those thoughts and let them sit for a long while. You got me 100% convinced, we should ban thermal coal. I may have already been convinced without the deep thought, but never mind. So here I am thinking, we should ban thermal coal. Let me add banning oil for transportation while we're at it. And banning fracked natural gas. I am certain a poll on this forum will show you got everyone convinced, not just me.
I am just bothered by a tiny part of your post:
"It does not matter whether banning coal is the right or wrong solution or can or can't be done".
But there exactly we differ and why I can't sign off on your post as an actual solution to the problem. IMHO, it does matter if it can or can't be done.

IMHO, convincing a large number of governments to ban thermal coal immediately - can't be done.
Convincing many governments, utilities, corporations and private persons to deploy solar and wind generation as an alternative to thermal coal - can be done using a mix of economic and ecological arguments.
End result is not very different, but the speed is. Your solution is of course better, if it can be done. If it can't, the other one is probably better.

[sidd]

"I think we've reached a majority decision that there are no workable "push this button", non-incremental solutions.  "

Who is "we" ? And what is "workable" ?

I see a discussion here among a  very few, privileged people, probably in the upper 10% in global income. What we consider workable is probably not what the 90% consider "workable"

For example, the average drowning farmer in Bangladesh would cheerfully vote to cut the throats of the upper 10% if it would buy his children a decade in the face of watery death.

sidd

[Shared Humanity]

"I think we've reached a majority decision that there are no workable "push this button", non-incremental solutions.  "

Who is "we" ? And what is "workable" ?

I see a discussion here among a  very few, privileged people, probably in the upper 10% in global income. What we consider workable is probably not what the 90% consider "workable"

For example, the average drowning farmer in Bangladesh would cheerfully vote to cut the throats of the upper 10% if it would buy his children a decade in the face of watery death.

sidd

I live in the U.S. and am most certainly in the wealthy 10%.

[Neven]

Shouldn't we quit the attacks on incrementalism and start working on how to make the steps larger/faster?

Why is it an 'attack' when someone says that incrementalism is not going to work and will most likely lead to civilisational collapse? Why isn't one allowed to say this, without being branded a 'radical' 'conspiracy theorist' 'doomer' engaging in 'magical thinking'?

You cannot greenify the supply side, while doing nothing on the demand side, in other words, without making systemic changes to the way western society is set up.

It is set up the way it is because concentrated wealth needs to grow at an exponential rate. And this is for a large part achieved through a consumerist culture that makes sure we do not "quit smoking, quit over drinking, lose weight, get more exercise, watch less junk TV and do something educational, invest for our retirement, get our oil changed on schedule", and so on.

As long as there's no cap on concentrated wealth in ever fewer hands, human beings and the environment will be sucked dry for all they're worth, with all this 'value' forcefully created out of thin air to be siphoned off to those mountains of concentrated wealth. This is what drives the system.

And you can't make that sustainable. Period.

I have a problem with the argument that there is no alternative and so I must shut up. Especially if I'm being told in a condescending way.

[sidd]

" a consumerist culture that makes sure we do not "quit smoking, quit over drinking, lose weight, get more exercise, watch less junk TV and do something educational, invest for our retirement, get our oil changed on schedule"

it's worse than that in the USA. In the little places in the back woods and byways there's a bunch of people who have given up. They are killing themselves, sometimes with a gun, sometimes with slower means.

"the fruitless years behind us, the hopeless years before us" as Kipling once said, tho in a very different context.

Not just in the back hollers.  I would estimate that about a tenth to a quarter of the off ramps of the freeways near the big cities that i go thru, (i go thru a lot) have homeless encampments under them. The fraction seems to depend on how hard core the town administration is and how tough the cops are.

sidd

 

[Neven]

BTW, given that there is also a meta-discussion going on with regard to these discussions themselves:

What's wrong with a bit of bickering and disagreement? We are not going to solve AGW here, or learn the Truth. What we are actually doing, is exchange knowledge and opinions, and learn, even if we're unaware of it. Sometimes this leads to conflict, but as long as it's non-violent, conflict can be a catalyst that speeds up things like awareness.

Of course, I'd like everyone to agree with me, but if this isn't the case, I will then have to think about what I want to say and the way that I say it to get my points across.

So, again:

I have no problems with green technology or incremental solutions (I'm not a back to the Middle Ages kind of guy), I have a problem when I (and others) am being told in condescending ways that I'm not allowed to say that I believe that green technology and incremental solutions are not sufficient to solve anything if nothing is done on the demand side of the issue.

For instance, I interpret this thread in itself as a condescending attempt to shut down discussions. It's not that I have a problem with people being a bit insulting or condescending. It's the Internet, after all. But at the same time this narrative is being created in which 'doomers' are 'attacking' the 'best and only solutions', while offering nothing more than 'magical thinking'. Unfortunately, this is an echo of the propaganda we're seeing in mainstream culture that tries to undercut any potential threat to the status quo.

I cannot help but go against that kind of conditioned thinking, sorry.

[Sleepy]

I agree.

This one was posted in the Paris thread by myself earlier:
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
Since I'm truly and insanely fond of verifiable links, images and videos produced by many different people that includes more verifiable information and hopefully confirms my own ramblings and preferably also agree on which path to follow forwards as a collective, I will put some of them in here and also take out a snippet from the video above and a couple more screenshots and attach them below. 

[Shared Humanity]

Sometimes this leads to conflict, but as long as it's non-violent, conflict can be a catalyst that speeds up things like awareness.

I will like to publicly declare to this community that I will not reach through my computer screen and throttle whoever has just raised my ire. 

[Shared Humanity]

These bullet points could not possibly capture my beliefs any better. I apologize for quoting this in its entirety but I am so stunned by their completeness that I wanted them to appear again on this thread so that the casual visitor is less likely to pass them over.

I agree.

This one was posted in the Paris thread by myself earlier:
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
Since I'm truly and insanely fond of verifiable links, images and videos produced by many different people that includes more verifiable information and hopefully confirms my own ramblings and preferably also agree on which path to follow forwards as a collective, I will put some of them in here and also take out a snippet from the video above and a couple more screenshots and attach them below. 

[Shared Humanity]

I had a highly successful 30 year career in manufacturing. Every successful manufacturing company is diligent in solving problems. When you collect quality defect data, you always focus on the most prevalent defect. You simply don't waste your time chasing the few. The wealthiest countries should be our sole focus with CO2 reduction and they should shoulder this responsibility.

[Neven]

Thanks for the bullet points and the video, Sleepy. I was looking for Kevin Anderson videos this very day to find something along those lines.

[SteveMDFP]

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...

I agree.  It's not hard for most of us to imagine a world where most people and organizations behave in ways with far less environmental destruction.  Alternatives to CO2 production and resource depletion are mostly straightforward--at increased cost and/or decreased convenience.

The core problem is to alter people's behavior.  There's a lot of research out there on what works or does not work to alter people's behavior.  Among the least effective (sadly) are ordinary educational efforts.  Learning, lectures, reading -- these don't generally alter behavior.  People do respond, however, to incentives, especially with ongoing monitoring/reporting of results.

So, a high global carbon price/tax would provide incentives for the needed change, at all levels of society.  Enacting this kind of measure does require political realignment.  I think education, while inadequate by itself, can alter the political landscape. 

That's why I think our combined contributions here on ASIF/ASIB are of under-appreciated importance.  It's a minuscule effort by itself, but it's *exactly* what the world needs far more of.

The effectiveness of efforts here are powerfully determined by our thoughtfulness and collegiality in discussions.  We have an audience far larger than the number of participants.  What we post here should be for their benefit, not ours.  Please post accordingly.

[TerryM]

Slow down. Slow everything down first by edict, then mechanically by mandating governors on every vehicle to be licensed.
Jimmy Carter saved vast quantities of fuel by mandating slower speed limits for automobiles. Ontario, 40 years later, mandated that every truck in the Province be equipped with a governor to keep their speed in check.


End thermal coal. Ontario has done it so it can be done.


The US has bullied the world for years. This power can for once be used to benefit the world's people. Trade agreements, aid agreements, travel restrictions, even threats of violence - they've all been successfully used in the past & they need to be rolled out one more time.


Both solutions offered can be implemented in years or months, and this is the speed at which we need to act.
Terry

[Sigmetnow]

Slow down. Slow everything down first by edict, then mechanically by mandating governors on every vehicle to be licensed.
Jimmy Carter saved vast quantities of fuel by mandating slower speed limits for automobiles. Ontario, 40 years later, mandated that every truck in the Province be equipped with a governor to keep their speed in check.
...

Interesting to ponder the difference Speed Governors make to ICE vehicles (which waste about 80% of their energy from gas to wheels) and EVs (which lose about 20% — IIRC).  Faster EV speeds do use up more battery.  But an easy over the air update, rather than hardware, could control a company’s EV fleet.  Do you get a pass if you operate using your own solar and wind energy?

[TerryM]

Slow down. Slow everything down first by edict, then mechanically by mandating governors on every vehicle to be licensed.
Jimmy Carter saved vast quantities of fuel by mandating slower speed limits for automobiles. Ontario, 40 years later, mandated that every truck in the Province be equipped with a governor to keep their speed in check.
...

Interesting to ponder the difference Speed Governors make to ICE vehicles (which waste about 80% of their energy from gas to wheels) and EVs (which lose about 20% — IIRC).  Faster EV speeds do use up more battery.  But an easy over the air update, rather than hardware, could control a company’s EV fleet.  Do you get a pass if you operate using your own solar and wind energy?

I don't think so. It's energy that could go back into the grid to help reduce thermal generation.
I have pondered different speed limits for car pooling vehicles, similar to today's diamond lanes.


Carter proved that speed limits could be reduced overnight by mandate. Wynn, in Ontario, proved that mandating governors, or as you pointed out, over the air software solutions, can reduce speed which increases mileage and lowers ff usage.


If the US were as serious about lowering CO2 as it has been at halting shipments of drugs or plutonium we could turn a few corners in <10 years.
I'm no fan of American hegemony, but it exists and must be used to bring the world into compliance. - 10 to life for possession of coal!


Now all we need is to change the direction America is heading.
Terry

[Neven]

It may also be useful to realise that people's behaviour has actually already been changed and is being kept that way. It's been done to create value and thus generate profits that eventually flow to the mountains of concentrated wealth. That's how consumer culture was created. It didn't come about by magic, or because human nature dictates it, but through a series of conscious choices. As often said, The Century of the Self is a very good documentary on this subject.

If the mountains of concentrated wealth stop growing (by putting a cap on how much an individual may own), maybe the excessive need for consumer culture will disappear as well. This would automatically change people's behaviour.

[SteveMDFP]

The core problem is to alter people's behavior.  There's a lot of research out there on what works or does not work to alter people's behavior.  Among the least effective (sadly) are ordinary educational efforts.  Learning, lectures, reading -- these don't generally alter behavior.  People do respond, however, to incentives, especially with ongoing monitoring/reporting of results.

Changing people's behavior through "incentives" you think? But why? Where is the evidence this changes people's behavior on a Mass Scale?
 

There's a large body of research available on what works to prompt behavior change.  Here's a start as to how this research applies to environmentally responsible behavior change:

Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer Behavior
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006211709570
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1023/a:1006211709570

". . .There are several strategies available for changing environmentally
significant consumer behavior. Policies may seek to alter behavior
by offering new and beneficial technology, changing financial and
other material incentives, changing attitudes and beliefs with education
and information, appealing to basic values, or modifying
institutional structures that may range from international agreements
down to community-level norms and neighborhood organizations.
There is evidence that each of these kinds of intervention can make
a difference under the right conditions and, perhaps more impor-
tantly, that large opportunities are missed by failing to combine the
strengths of different approaches (Gardner & Stern, 1996). The effects
of various kinds of intervention interact. I will illustrate here by
focusing on only two of the major intervention strategies: providing
information about the beneficial effects to the consumer of behavioral
changes, and offering material incentives for behavioral change.
Before examining the evidence, however, it is useful to have a conceptual
framework into which to assimilate it. . ."

As I've suggested, information and education plays an important role.  Such efforts can potentially permit needed political change.  This, combined with incentives, can interact to alter individual behavior on a wide scale.

[sidd]

"I'm no fan of American hegemony, but it exists and must be used to bring the world into compliance"

Whereas I think that the hegemony of the USA is being broken as we speak, and that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for action on climate change.

sidd

[Neven]

the insulting bits that are now removed from the comment

See, now you're taking it too far and I would like to ask you to not do that.

I've stated what my problem with Bob is, and it's not even that personal, more something that happens in general which annoys me. That doesn't mean that I now feel that I have the right to go tit for tat, especially given the fact that Bob has been an early adopter with many things and has actually applied much of the behavioural change to his own life.

I appreciate Bob's positivism and the updates on what's going on in the world with things like renewables and EVs. l just don't agree with him that there are no viable alternatives to anything but green technology, and so all the fools need to shut up. That's all. It's not the end of the world.

Oh wait, it actually is. 

[oren]

Why do you have to slander Bob personally I can't fathom.
Edit:took your advice magna.

[magnamentis]

Why do you have to slander Bob personally I can't fathom. Really disgusted by it

if  a poster obviously and generally wants to make a good point, means is really seeking to find ways and look at things as a whole and from as many different angles as possible i think it's well worth to friendly hint at eventual outliers and exaggerations. with such people it works much better than to corner them into the bad people corner.

i'm saying this because to utter disgust is exactly a personal attack as well because it translates into: You Are Disgusting" and that's not target leading also, as little as the reason for that disgust is.

this means in short, i agree with you that such personal attacks are not necessary but so often people who dislike that in return do the very same and that produces multiple groups (parties) and after a while they can't come together anymore to pull the same strings even though they so often want the same thing.

group building by "you are ok" and "you are not ok" and "we are the core and you don't belong is counter productive IMO while as i clearly mentioned, i share your point, knowing that i as well have the talent to overshoot but hopefully show that i'm willing to learn and apologize if necessary and reading between the lines i see that other are similar. so let's try to be what we are, ONE group of people in a place where we try to find ways and solve the same problem.

Any input can be useful even when a bit off or from critical style and even that can be resolved by offering an face palm to bring things in line (on free will of course)

to make people look bad is a form of coercion, political correctness is not target leading as well, trump is a result of too much political correctness and people getting tired of all the hypocrisy and then there are the straight forward people who at times overshot and the real purpose, finding solutions remains neglect in the process. ( see european union at it's current state) and basically the whole bunch

no offend meant, that's hopefully clear but i think we should bundle our forces not get lost in petty and off topic personal arguments and last but not least if someone feels offended he, and only he or she, should make a statement and if someone is choosing to let it be and to not reply, all others should keep it the same way.

i know that this is far fetched but many wars in the past started with such petty animosities that ultimately reached point where it got unbearable and pride started to rule actions.

EDIT: BTW i use PM to discuss personal critical stuff with users and even more BTW, that's how to find out whether someone blocked you because it's not possible to send PM to someone who blocked a user and i think it's a flaw in the concept because it prevent people to talk, iron things out and eventually make peace @neven what do you think about this point of view?

[magnamentis]

Why do you have to slander Bob personally I can't fathom. Really disgusted by it

which part of the comment do you think was "slanderous"?

I can't fathom it unless you specifically point it out.

It was this part and the tone:

QUOTE
I can imagine he'd be right at home participating in a Neoliberal Leadership Strategy Meeting chaired by one of the Koch brothers.
END QUOTE

i hope that you know that i share your approach in general, it's just necessary that we keep the recipients ears and eyes open for input and with this kind of assumption/theories we shut the receivers of our audience down.