I read Ministry for the Future lately, and minor faults aside, the book made me take climate change seriously-seriously. I’m not sure what I’d do about engaging with that yet though with my current career path*.
B/t reading that book and it reflected in news like this and related events at the COP, seems like we’re in for a rough go.
Sounds like you are in a similar place to me. I recently became a father and I feel that I need to work on this problem the best way I can. I have my little startup and I expect to keep running that for another few years but I have started a background thread in my head looking into how I can best apply my particular skillset to helping tackle climate change.
I had a chat with a woman named Laurie McGinley who coaches people in that situation and she gave me a bunch of resources that I am slowly consuming. I can highly recommend talking to her if you are considering it as well. https://vialucent.com/
They also mentioned the stat that if 1 person lived totally carbon neutral for 70 years, that would offset only 1 second of current global CO2 emissions, which I'm going to presume is sourced properly.
I'm not very optimistic. Politicians follow the polls and go with what's popular, and if the people living in the rich nations have to pay more to fly to Asia for cheap holidays, and iPhones, etc, get more expensive because of carbon tax, the majority probably won't support the governments and will instead vote in populist idiots that will make things "great again". In the poorer countries, being told that the decades-old luxuries they've envied from richer nations will cost more because of government policies will also not be popular, never mind that the policies are meant to save the future.
> They also mentioned the stat that if 1 person lived totally carbon neutral for 70 years, that would offset only 1 second of current global CO2 emissions, which I'm going to presume is sourced properly.
That's a strawman's argument and in theory would apply to anything in the context of overall society if it was true which is clearly not the case. Because if you really lived completely carbon neutral for decades, you'd probably appear in dozens of TV shows and magazines will have exclusive interviews for you. (Not sure if it's exactly NYT, but you'll sure attract interest) So other people see that and realize: wow, it's actually possible to survive for decades in a carbon neutral way.
In reality it wouldn't be that extreme but it's always a domino effect: your colleagues, friends and family see what you do and be at least lightly influenced by it. Be it just the fact that you do something that people thought would be not possible.
After all, that's how democracy works and how movements grow. It's not that your vote only depends on the campaigns but also on your peers' opinion. It's not that movements in the past haven't been succeeding.
I don't get how it's a strawman? I'll vote for the toughest pro-environmental policies and parties (but give us nuclear power as well!), but without economic pressures (so higher carbon/consumption tax) I won't change my behavior, because I think my effect will be negligible and I'd just be like the Amish, being pious while others enjoy. (Basically tragedy of the commons).
I mean in the US there are only 2 political parties over 1% anyway, so these policies cannot be very tough especially if these are without any pressure. It's quite an irony actually since the idea of a small state is so popular yet it's not being driven forward. On-and-off I'm since 15 years using private energy providers using exclusively solar, water and wind. It's a bit more expensive but negligible compared to other expenses.
> I won't change my behavior, because I think my effect will be negligible and I'd just be like the Amish, being pious while others enjoy.
Well yes, but this is what I mean, the Amish have an effect. Yet I don't think it's not necessary to live like an Amish. Probably it's fine to just pick the next pricier product. A few percent extra paid don't hurt, have a good effect and will promote these products both towards sellers and other buyers.
I'd argue this is demonstrably false if you include modern societies and even individuals that already greatly inconvenience themselves (or deny themselves in the first place) the ability to have large carbon footprints. The Amish come to mind but otherwise very orthodox religious societies and even some organic farmers you could argue are pretty carbon neutral. If anything they are the opposite of looked up to in pop culture.
> If anything they are the opposite of looked up to in pop culture.
Maybe not by their own initiative but I mean there are countless YouTube videos among them and Amish versions of popular songs as well as Southpark and Family guy episodes depicting Amish life style. Our media has quite a bias towards extreme life styles...
From Wikipedia: "the novel follows a subsidiary body, established under the Paris Agreement, whose mission is to advocate for the world's future generations of citizens as if their rights are as valid as the present generation's."
Is Climate Change the only threat that the body looks at, or do they look at other threats such as corporate power structures, abortion etc?
I don't see how "bad" moral decisions about abortion would affect future generations: people may have better judgement in the future, nothing prevents them from effectively eliminating abortion.
The thing with climate change, as it is postulated, is that there might be no next generations, or that they will be severely limited in their moral choices by civilization collapse.
So putting both on the same desk is really misleading.
I agree with your general point, but I think you're overstating it a bit.
Global warming doesn't pose a human extinction or civilizational collapse level threat in the next century. Tens or hundreds of millions of deaths, untold quantities of suffering, habitat destruction, and huge economic losses are within reason, but humanity would take that on the chin and carry on. 80 million young men, many from wealthy countries, died fighting in WW2, and European infrastructure took a huge hit. You can barely notice the impact on a global gdp chart, and it's invisible on population.
Abortion may also have long term consequences, though they would almost certainly be less severe. Genetics that are beneficial to humanity may also increase abortion likelihood- eg. educated women are more likely to be intelligent and to abort compared to the general population. Or the inverse, genes that act against abortion may be bad for humans at large- eg. whatever makes people fundamentalist. But these are just speculations, and it may even wind up being beneficial.
I agree that the two are not on the same order of magnitude, but it's less cut and dry than comparing zero and infinity.
I doubt that intelligent women do abortions in any large quantities in developed countries - they should be smart enough to use contracepcion. So if you are into eugenics, abortion may be the way to go.
i don’t think protecting the rights of people who won’t exist until later has anything to do with the rights of a fetus/person who will cease to exist.
I'm reading this book right now, and it doesn't make me enthused for the future. But I'm all over the place, I never know what level of doom-thinking to accept for climate change.
> ...But in this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power....
the two books are fairly similar actually. MffF doesn't have much dogmatic environmentalist alarm. It discusses how humanity and its systems could react once the point of no climate return is reached/if it's reached, which is a different focus than this book you've linked. Whitewashing MffF as environmental alarmism really misses the point.
For example, assuming this is covered Shellenberger's book
> He also cites that the Dutch have adapted quite well to subsidence putting much of their nation under sea level, and they have been able to survive and thrive
MffF "wouldn't" disagree with that. But, it would highlight some instances where CC adaption mindsets (like your linked book) don't cover the whole picture. Some climates humans just can't adapt to. What then? MffF goes through that.
the DoD is the single largest institutional polluter on the planet...so if they're quite concerned with climate change, they can start by fixing themselves
If the DoD disappeared tomorrow, wouldn’t pretty much the entire world immediately build up their militaries?
They are heavy polluters, and I certainly hope they do everything in their charge to clean up as best they can, but if the entire world under the USAF’s umbrella suddenly lacked that support, I’d suspect you’d see quite the carbon emissions from the immediate arms build ups and regional conflicts.
It’s not like the rest of the world just loves peace, we don’t really exist in some sort of vacuum unfortunately.
There's no climate crisis? Or today's world leaders are just hypocrite because they care more about their own acquaintance's interest/power/money than the future of our climate?
If the latter, why not decry the leaders' behavior / ideology?
Well, I'll take the bait. Personally I never understood how political views on border security were anti-correlated with the belief climate change will affect food and water security.
I recently purchased a SoCal property that is 400ft from the ocean despite knowing about sea level rise, but it's also just an 8hour walk to Mexico. Doubtful I would have purchased it if we didn't have a border wall in Tijuana as I am not bullish on things getting better in Central America in the next 2 decades due to climate change. But I am fairly confident that the rising sea level will not be a problem for this property (it's 2.2meters above sea level) in the next 2 decades at least according to the IPCC and NOAA predictions. Although a bad El Nino could strike any year so who knows.
I didn't intend my comment to be bait, I think I was more worried about local problems. My state announced that it will ration water (restrict it part of the day) starting January. This has happened before, in the 80s, and was solved then with the construction of dams.
Genuinely curious: what is your actual, concrete security concern with not having a border wall? What do you perveive that to actually protect you, personally, from?
One need look no further than the recent refugee crises in Europe to see what could easily result without strong border security. We are talking of a future where that level of mass migration will seem like small potatoes. A wall being merely one part of a secure border, by itself it would do little.
Now that it's been a few years, have there been any studies into macro effects from the refugee crisis in Europe? Most of what I saw (from a US perspective) mostly treated it as a humanitarian and logistical crisis along with some relatively, shall we say, "culturally defensive" responses from local advocates, but I haven't seen a concrete "x damage was done by migrants to the societies they ended up in".
The humanitarian crisis (concern for the migrants themselves) and logistical crisis (where do we put the migrants) would, to a global perspective, be a concern whether or not those migrants got stopped by a wall at the US's southern border.
You might say Brexit is a self inflicted wound, but it was sparked by that refugee crises.
You're right that proper border security doesn't solve the humanitarian and logistical crises. But I don't think that's a good argument for doing away with border controls all together. Your position seems to be that uncontrolled migration causes no harm, which seems a pretty extreme position to take.
Most of these countries have excellent social safety nets and public services which are now available to any migrants who achieve legal status. While contributing little in taxes back. If they don't get status they also don't pay any taxes.
I would argue the burden of proof is on you to establish that those migrants do no harm to the society rather than assuming they don't until proven otherwise.
Brexit was one of the defensive responses I was referring to.
I'm not arguing it causes no harm; I'm asking whether anybody has established any damage in the data. This is an opportunity to do a natural experiment; different places had different policies for integrating a large number of migrants, ranging from "don't let any in" to "find ways to integrate them viably into our society". Now that it's been ~5 years, what data do we have for which of those policies was beneficial for whom?
I'd add that I'm neither an economist nor a sociologist, nor do I speak any of the languages of Central Europe, so I'm not in a very good position to be able to surface good data.
>Most of these countries have excellent social safety nets and public services which are now available to any migrants who achieve legal status. While contributing little in taxes back. If they don't get status they also don't pay any taxes.
If they have can establish legal status to draw on the social safety net, they pay taxes, and presumably have the opportunity to stabilize their lives and contribute more taxes. Has that happened in the places where they were given legal status?
What are the means by which we could secure the border? Some parts of the border have had physical walls for decades but they don't seem to be very effective. People go over, under, around, or through.
I have never understood the rejection of walls as an effective means of preventing access. Ladders, tunnels, battering rams, and 'going around' have all existed for millenia, but we've kept on building walls the whole time. How could the whole world be deluded about that for so long?
If you enter your bank password over unsecured public wifi, someone there could steal it. But my advice to someone who does banking in a wifi cafe would not be "don't use a password at all, it does nothing for you".
All banks use HTTPS so there is no real risk that someone will steal your password over unsecured wifi.
Border walls can only prevent access if there are actual guards and sensors monitoring the wall and responding when people attempt to go over, under, or through. That would be extremely expensive. Is it a good use of public funds?
What's the alternative, give up on border control? How fair is it that people from India wait 20 years for a green card for following the rules while others just walk across illegally?
I don't understand the seeming position by some on the left that there's no need for border security.
I'm not opposed to border security. I just don't think that building a wall would be a cost effective means of achieving that goal. Plus there would be some negative environmental impacts.
My bad, I shouldn't have taken the bait. What could I possibly add to a conversation about security that you couldn't do on your own as a simple thought experiment.
B/t reading that book and it reflected in news like this and related events at the COP, seems like we’re in for a rough go.