I have several friends who can best be described as climate zealots. This is because they routinely express that we are heading towards an Earth that is uninhabitable. A changed climate will most certainly lead to more extinctions and harsher environments. While I accept that our current trajectory will lead to catastrophe, they believe it will instead be a cataclysm greater than any previous mass extinction event in Earth's history.
Activism, in general, is no stranger to hyperbole. But the most peculiar thing is how so many people with this apocalyptic mindset also happen to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I've also noticed the changes they demand are effectively impossible to enact politically. Tragically, this just means they get angrier and angrier that so little progress is being made.
The other problem with always angry protesters is that the list is endless, so as soon as something gets fixed, the next day there is just another protest for something else.
I don't know what it's like in other cities, but in Chicago, you can hire protesters. They come in on buses.
Back when I was in journalism, it was always annoying for the reporters to pick some random person from the crowd holding signs and ask them about the issue only to find out that they didn't even know what the protest was about, and were just there to get a check.
In fairness to climate protestors/activists, which developed nation has really taken any significant strides in the past 10-20 years?
I think there's some valid frustration when lip service is paid and then all that comes of it is some token stuff like boutique tax credits for EVs and residential solar installs, but the money trunks get rolled right out when it's the financial crisis, major wars, COVID response, etc. I'm not saying those aren't valid things to have mobilized for, but it's clear that western society as a whole still thinks of climate solutions as catering to a special interest group rather than as something that is a priority.
And maybe that's fine if it's reflective of public sentiment. But the perception of never-ending angry protestors is not just because they're unsatisfiable. It's also because very little has actually happened.
The projected warming has shifted from 5 degrees to 2.6 degrees. So obviously quite a bit has been done. For example Britain is down 50% from 1990 levels. It's not enough, but to say "very little has actually happened" is disingenuous.
IMO, the biggest thing that has been done is that renewable power and EV transportation have now become cost competitive. Both of those, especially the first, required a lot of government subsidization to get volumes up so that the learning effect could take effect.5
Yeah, a lot of climate activism is just wildly out-there, an I mean specifically the "life on earth will end" and Extinction Rebellion type groups.
Thing is, what's actually at stake - modern industrial civilization - is scary enough on it's own. Under the worst scenarios, the planet will be fine, the environment will be fine, life will be fine, even humans will continue to live. But bad climate scenarios have the potential to throw humans back into pre-industrial times (and populations) and critically - do so permanently. Easy coal and oil resources are gone, so the industrial revolution cannot happen a second time. Pre-industrial civilization also can't support all the people on earth today, so this necessarily means mass casualties.
This is all very scary and very real on it's own without the need for hyperbolic embellishment.
Even crashing back to pre-industrial civilization doesn't make sense. Climate change is fast on a geological scale, but its not that fast on a human scale. It might be shocking if Phoenix is uninhabitable in 100 years, but it barely even existed 100 years ago. Famines and water shortages will be localized. So while individual nations might collapse for a while and some areas might even depopulate, it won't happen all at once.
To be clear, even this would be an unprecedented catastrophe. Civilization would go on in some form, but hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people, would suffer immensely and many would die from famine, war, disease, etc.
My father had a mid-life crisis in the mid-90s and went from being an apocalyptic end-times Christian to being an apocalyptic environmentalist.
The dress, fashion, and lingo of the nutbags that hung out at my house changed, but their personality characteristics and complete inability to engage in multivariate analysis of reality was identical.
Radical ideologues and radical religious fundamentalists are, for me, 2 sides of the same coin. And both have a tendency to turn the movements they claim to represent into caricatures of themselves.
Apocalyptic environmentalists have moved beyond a certainty of the problem of climate change to a certainty on THE ONE AND ONLY SOLUTION, which is a radical reduction in standard of living in the industrialized world being the answer.
My father was never able to do anything beyond simple algebra. He thinks in terms of stories and narratives. He won't listen to my brother or myself when we try to actually talk to him about numbers and reality and whatnot, saying we are too young to know anything. But minutes later in the same conversation, he will start talking about how wonderful Greta Thunberg is. For him, it's all emotion and feeling and "doing something".
It's fucking unbearable, and my siblings and I are at a point where we avoid visiting him at his home, because he just won't stop parroting deranged talking points. His friends will frequently be there, and the constant one-upping of them with various moral posturing is nauseating.
Whew, that sounds awful. Part of the problem is that the subtle middle ground doesn't lend itself to stories and narratives. That's what we really need to bring around people like your dad, a way to excite people about being non-extremists.
The absolute magnitude of the change is much less important than the rate of change. Species and ecosystems can adapt over 10,000 year time scales. They can't adapt in a couple of decades.
>Species and ecosystems can adapt over 10,000 year time scales.
Adaptation is change in behavior that can happen within an individual's lifetime (<100yrs) and evolution takes a lot lot longer than 10,000 years. Pretty much all the species existing today survived the last glaciation (ice age) in their present form.
The "Marxism" catchall boogieman in conservative media is ill defined, but I have not seen any evidence that the climatic change will be so rapid that it will cause humans to go extinct. That seems wildly hyperbolic to me.
You're getting downvotes because your comment is propaganda and doesn't contribute to discussion. For example:
> all the solutions to climate change are marxist
> adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security
When did those things become marxist? Those are the basics that any modern society should make available for people -- and nearly all do, except for the USA.
> They dont want nuclear or solar panels
Who is 'they'? I certainly want nuclear and solar panels and electric transportation, if it means my kids can grow up in a sustainable and stable world.
This is an uncharitable misstatement. Conservative media tells people to call a lot of things "Marxist" that objectively have nothing to do with Karl Marx. That misnomer does not mean the things being criticized are good ideas. A lot of the proposed solutions to climate change are fantastical and misguided hype.
>they believe it will instead be a cataclysm greater than any previous mass extinction event in Earth's history.
It is already broadly accepted that we are already experiencing a massive mass extinction event - the Anthropocene Extinction.
I think critics don't really understand the scale or scope of the changes humans have made to the planet and the negative results for all other species. Global warming is just one issue, perhaps one of the most pressing, but it also blinds people to the devastation of deforestation, coral reef loss and a multiple of other man made disasters.
It's becoming more and more clear to me that the underlying issue driving much of our current crises is that people think binary - it's either "climate apocalypse" or "let's burn all the fossil fuel". Same for the COVID mess, gun laws, critical race theory, take your pick. People are uncomfortable with nuance and since we basically have to pick the experts we trust we fall victim to the loudest and most exciting voice.
I also think we have a broker versus agent problem. I view a broker as someone paid via a seller to maximize profit. versus an agent as someone paid by the consumer who has the consumers interests at heart. There are lot of brokers google, facebook, politicians etc. not a lot of agents. both help to get transactions done.
You are right but what is the alternative. Do you think that it is practical to expect people to become subject matter experts on everything? Should they spend their limited free time reading through dozens of articles about covid vaccination studies (e.g.)? No one is going to do that, we are wired to value group think. This is similar to "Thinking: Fast and Slow". We now take clues from Fox News or CNN or Hatebook and if something matches are pattern, we just accept it and move on. The issue is the world is very very complicated and getting more so every day. People just want to get through today and tomorrow. In the end, they don't really care and they won't care until someone they trusts tells them to care. The problem is that the people spewing garbage aren't trying to disseminate information (even with a bias), they are structured specifically to create outrage (faux) that sells more ads. This is extremely profitable and nothing will change as long as that is true. Perception is reality now. If we want to stop this, we need to heavily tax digital advertising revenue. We need people to have to make a choice to pay for this outrage infotainment or do something else.
I agree. I think people have figured that it's easier to get your way if you portray the "other" side so far away that there is no way to even talk to them (other than yelling). Marking people as "socialist", "racist" or "transphobic" marks them as irredeemably bad
>It's becoming more and more clear to me that the underlying issue driving much of our current crises is that people think binary - it's either "climate apocalypse" or "let's burn all the fossil fuel". Same for the COVID mess, gun laws, critical race theory, take your pick. People are uncomfortable with nuance and since we basically have to pick the experts we trust we fall victim to the loudest and most exciting voice.
It's a new religion. Due to religion being outlawed in places like China this new religion hides itself. I suppose there's no rule saying religions must be public. Which given the societal hatred of recent new religions it makes sense. In addition, their fundamental structure has been tried and failed across the world many times. So going public isn't going to work.
They are prominent in Covid. Like many religions, they wish to dictate what you eat and do in health matters.
They are certainly anti firearm.
Critical race theory comes out of this new religion. Obviously they are very pro-civil rights. Feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles, and similarity. Social justice in a way to be sure. Intersectionality is obviously a big deal. Ending the drug war is very important to them.
Their goal is a classless society and equal outcome. This puts them at odds with capitalism and the business society. Climate change is a way for their agenda to be pushed against the business class.
I don't know exact numbers of how many adherents but it's about 3 million in north america. They are really struggling in north america but they are certainly easy to identify once you identify their 'heresy and apostasy' type things. Sam Harris is a racist right? He's calling this new religion the 'religion of anti-racism' as what do you name it?
The irony is that they are seeing it from the atheist point of view, which misses the whole thing. When you have to step back and see it from the economic or political point of view. The irony being those 2 guys are on the record being on this new religion's side. That's beyond irony to me.
Ted Nordhaus is the founder and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, a research centre focused on technological solutions to environmental challenges.
The first step in addressing global climate change is realizing that it's not the sort of problem that more tech or capitalism can solve, since they created it.
From a tech perspective, the scale of the problem is that the majority of people on Earth need to transition to things like solar and electric cars/bikes, redesign cities to lose the suburbs, not to mention fix the majority of the supply chain to be sustainable. It's tens of thousands of dollars per person, something like $10-100 trillion total. Wealthy countries never wanted to pay for that or lead on that, so here we are.
An alternative might be sustainability from a seventh generation standpoint, picking ourselves up by our bootstraps solarpunk fashion because world leaders are unlikely to act on this before it's too late (which it may already be). This is the approach I'm taking in my own life.
If we don't start doing something, coral reefs will be dead by 2050, remaining fisheries will collapse, there will be great refugee migrations and potentially WWIII. But it won't matter anyway since the remaining forest will also be gone and most large non-agriculture land animals will be extinct by 2100. I'd say this sounds alarmist, but I first heard about it as a kid in the 1980s when Reagan took the solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed, and it's so much worse today, as we're seeing.
Environmental causes were traditionally led by a handful of people. All of the remaining wildernesses left in the US got there because someone sacrificed years of their life organizing, fundraising and waging legal battles against resource extractors and the government. This was never ideal, but if it weren't for that, it would all be gone today.
Don't let articles like this distract you from your personal contribution.
> The first step in addressing global climate change is realizing that it's not the sort of problem that more tech or more capitalism
The problem is that it seems more and more unlikely that anything will solve it aside from more tech. (I'll avoid the "capitalism" aspect as it's a fairly poorly defined term at least in it's common usage).
The ability to coordinate globally on a problem of mutual concern for the common good might have been viable at some points in history but it seems to be impossible right now. That might change as things get worse but at that point it might be too late for anything other than drastic solutions.
I can't see a way out other than "wait until it's awful and then throw a big chunk of the world's GDP at it" (or wait for a supervolcano to solve it for us)
While I think some of hyperbole around climate change risks confusing people about exactly how bad the situation could be, the differences between 1.5 and 2 degrees are not trivial, and even 1.5 degrees is considerably worse than what we have now.
>The good news is that if countries uphold their commitments from the past several years to sharply cut emissions, the world will be in position to limit warming closer to 2°C, the long-standing international target for climate stabilisation.
The qualifiers here are doing a lot of work. If countries uphold their commitments, they will be in a position to limit warning closer to 2°C. Nordhouse dismisses Thunberg's comments as "adolescent cynicism," but there's a real gap between commitments and action. The Biden administration's Build Back Better bill with the CEPP provisions included would put the U.S. on a track to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, according to one analysis [0]. That target is more reachable than I think a lot of people pessimistic about climate change action, myself included, thought. However, the full bill is unlikely to pass. The recently signed bipartisan infrastructure bill will make only a small dent—the US would need BBB or legislature with similar climate ambitions to actually be on the right track.
Nordhouse's link [1] shows that if nations keep their commitments by 2030, it will be 2.4, which is much better than 3 degrees, but significantly higher than 2. Optimistically, warming could be kept to 1.9 degrees if long-term commitments are all kept.
So it's fair to point out that there's still time, but I don't think dismissing critics like Thunberg is fair. Without holding nations to their commitments like she's doing, it's much more likely we won't do any better than the current 3 degree projection.
If only activists had never resorted to hyperbole, people would have seen through the vast, well-funded web of climate denial. They'd have Done Their Own Research (tm) and reached a reasonable and non-controversial approach to tackling climate change.
I realize that sarcasm never reads well on the Internet, but it's the natural response to a statement so stupid that there's no alternative but to repeat it in astonishment.
I do wish that climate activists were always correct and never hyperbolic. That would be great. But it's a persistent falsehood that people would change their minds if only it weren't for the missteps by activists.
Climate denial is not "misleading". It's active, deliberately constructed misinformation, which a ton of people accept because it aligns with their ideology. Even people who are nominally intelligent enough to figure it out. I've even seen them claim that they'd believe the truth if only there weren't some activist out there somewhere so said the wrong thing and therefore they're happy to cut off their entire head to spite their face.
36 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadActivism, in general, is no stranger to hyperbole. But the most peculiar thing is how so many people with this apocalyptic mindset also happen to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I've also noticed the changes they demand are effectively impossible to enact politically. Tragically, this just means they get angrier and angrier that so little progress is being made.
Back when I was in journalism, it was always annoying for the reporters to pick some random person from the crowd holding signs and ask them about the issue only to find out that they didn't even know what the protest was about, and were just there to get a check.
Protesters-as-a-Service, I guess.
I think there's some valid frustration when lip service is paid and then all that comes of it is some token stuff like boutique tax credits for EVs and residential solar installs, but the money trunks get rolled right out when it's the financial crisis, major wars, COVID response, etc. I'm not saying those aren't valid things to have mobilized for, but it's clear that western society as a whole still thinks of climate solutions as catering to a special interest group rather than as something that is a priority.
And maybe that's fine if it's reflective of public sentiment. But the perception of never-ending angry protestors is not just because they're unsatisfiable. It's also because very little has actually happened.
Iceland runs mostly on renewable energy: https://reneweconomy.com.au/iceland-a-100-renewables-example....
IMO, the biggest thing that has been done is that renewable power and EV transportation have now become cost competitive. Both of those, especially the first, required a lot of government subsidization to get volumes up so that the learning effect could take effect.5
Europe and USA have both actively reduced emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#/media/File:Pe...
Thing is, what's actually at stake - modern industrial civilization - is scary enough on it's own. Under the worst scenarios, the planet will be fine, the environment will be fine, life will be fine, even humans will continue to live. But bad climate scenarios have the potential to throw humans back into pre-industrial times (and populations) and critically - do so permanently. Easy coal and oil resources are gone, so the industrial revolution cannot happen a second time. Pre-industrial civilization also can't support all the people on earth today, so this necessarily means mass casualties.
This is all very scary and very real on it's own without the need for hyperbolic embellishment.
The dress, fashion, and lingo of the nutbags that hung out at my house changed, but their personality characteristics and complete inability to engage in multivariate analysis of reality was identical.
Radical ideologues and radical religious fundamentalists are, for me, 2 sides of the same coin. And both have a tendency to turn the movements they claim to represent into caricatures of themselves.
Apocalyptic environmentalists have moved beyond a certainty of the problem of climate change to a certainty on THE ONE AND ONLY SOLUTION, which is a radical reduction in standard of living in the industrialized world being the answer.
My father was never able to do anything beyond simple algebra. He thinks in terms of stories and narratives. He won't listen to my brother or myself when we try to actually talk to him about numbers and reality and whatnot, saying we are too young to know anything. But minutes later in the same conversation, he will start talking about how wonderful Greta Thunberg is. For him, it's all emotion and feeling and "doing something".
It's fucking unbearable, and my siblings and I are at a point where we avoid visiting him at his home, because he just won't stop parroting deranged talking points. His friends will frequently be there, and the constant one-upping of them with various moral posturing is nauseating.
Adaptation is change in behavior that can happen within an individual's lifetime (<100yrs) and evolution takes a lot lot longer than 10,000 years. Pretty much all the species existing today survived the last glaciation (ice age) in their present form.
The "Marxism" catchall boogieman in conservative media is ill defined, but I have not seen any evidence that the climatic change will be so rapid that it will cause humans to go extinct. That seems wildly hyperbolic to me.
"AOC has said we have about 10 years until humanity is extinct."
"This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally"
"Like the "world ending in 12 years thing", you'd have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it's literal"
So you're either purposefully misrepresenting the quote, or you're a sea sponge.
> all the solutions to climate change are marxist
> adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security
When did those things become marxist? Those are the basics that any modern society should make available for people -- and nearly all do, except for the USA.
> They dont want nuclear or solar panels
Who is 'they'? I certainly want nuclear and solar panels and electric transportation, if it means my kids can grow up in a sustainable and stable world.
This is an uncharitable misstatement. Conservative media tells people to call a lot of things "Marxist" that objectively have nothing to do with Karl Marx. That misnomer does not mean the things being criticized are good ideas. A lot of the proposed solutions to climate change are fantastical and misguided hype.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dzq9yPE5Cbo
"Plastic from Air" is a good example.
> What exactly did I say?
You said:
> Climate change is just a political tool to push an agenda which is not popular on its own.
> They dont want nuclear or solar panels on every house
> AOC has said we have about 10 years until humanity is extinct.
Where are the sources for those? Are they facts? Or do they read like propagandist misinformation?
You also edited your comment to take out the "marxist" jibe - why?
It is already broadly accepted that we are already experiencing a massive mass extinction event - the Anthropocene Extinction.
I think critics don't really understand the scale or scope of the changes humans have made to the planet and the negative results for all other species. Global warming is just one issue, perhaps one of the most pressing, but it also blinds people to the devastation of deforestation, coral reef loss and a multiple of other man made disasters.
I also think we have a broker versus agent problem. I view a broker as someone paid via a seller to maximize profit. versus an agent as someone paid by the consumer who has the consumers interests at heart. There are lot of brokers google, facebook, politicians etc. not a lot of agents. both help to get transactions done.
It's a new religion. Due to religion being outlawed in places like China this new religion hides itself. I suppose there's no rule saying religions must be public. Which given the societal hatred of recent new religions it makes sense. In addition, their fundamental structure has been tried and failed across the world many times. So going public isn't going to work.
They are prominent in Covid. Like many religions, they wish to dictate what you eat and do in health matters.
They are certainly anti firearm.
Critical race theory comes out of this new religion. Obviously they are very pro-civil rights. Feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles, and similarity. Social justice in a way to be sure. Intersectionality is obviously a big deal. Ending the drug war is very important to them.
Their goal is a classless society and equal outcome. This puts them at odds with capitalism and the business society. Climate change is a way for their agenda to be pushed against the business class.
I don't know exact numbers of how many adherents but it's about 3 million in north america. They are really struggling in north america but they are certainly easy to identify once you identify their 'heresy and apostasy' type things. Sam Harris is a racist right? He's calling this new religion the 'religion of anti-racism' as what do you name it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPMsrQ44b4
The irony is that they are seeing it from the atheist point of view, which misses the whole thing. When you have to step back and see it from the economic or political point of view. The irony being those 2 guys are on the record being on this new religion's side. That's beyond irony to me.
I think I see what's going on, from the article:
Ted Nordhaus is the founder and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, a research centre focused on technological solutions to environmental challenges.
The first step in addressing global climate change is realizing that it's not the sort of problem that more tech or capitalism can solve, since they created it.
From a tech perspective, the scale of the problem is that the majority of people on Earth need to transition to things like solar and electric cars/bikes, redesign cities to lose the suburbs, not to mention fix the majority of the supply chain to be sustainable. It's tens of thousands of dollars per person, something like $10-100 trillion total. Wealthy countries never wanted to pay for that or lead on that, so here we are.
An alternative might be sustainability from a seventh generation standpoint, picking ourselves up by our bootstraps solarpunk fashion because world leaders are unlikely to act on this before it's too late (which it may already be). This is the approach I'm taking in my own life.
If we don't start doing something, coral reefs will be dead by 2050, remaining fisheries will collapse, there will be great refugee migrations and potentially WWIII. But it won't matter anyway since the remaining forest will also be gone and most large non-agriculture land animals will be extinct by 2100. I'd say this sounds alarmist, but I first heard about it as a kid in the 1980s when Reagan took the solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed, and it's so much worse today, as we're seeing.
Environmental causes were traditionally led by a handful of people. All of the remaining wildernesses left in the US got there because someone sacrificed years of their life organizing, fundraising and waging legal battles against resource extractors and the government. This was never ideal, but if it weren't for that, it would all be gone today.
Don't let articles like this distract you from your personal contribution.
The problem is that it seems more and more unlikely that anything will solve it aside from more tech. (I'll avoid the "capitalism" aspect as it's a fairly poorly defined term at least in it's common usage).
The ability to coordinate globally on a problem of mutual concern for the common good might have been viable at some points in history but it seems to be impossible right now. That might change as things get worse but at that point it might be too late for anything other than drastic solutions.
I can't see a way out other than "wait until it's awful and then throw a big chunk of the world's GDP at it" (or wait for a supervolcano to solve it for us)
>The good news is that if countries uphold their commitments from the past several years to sharply cut emissions, the world will be in position to limit warming closer to 2°C, the long-standing international target for climate stabilisation.
The qualifiers here are doing a lot of work. If countries uphold their commitments, they will be in a position to limit warning closer to 2°C. Nordhouse dismisses Thunberg's comments as "adolescent cynicism," but there's a real gap between commitments and action. The Biden administration's Build Back Better bill with the CEPP provisions included would put the U.S. on a track to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, according to one analysis [0]. That target is more reachable than I think a lot of people pessimistic about climate change action, myself included, thought. However, the full bill is unlikely to pass. The recently signed bipartisan infrastructure bill will make only a small dent—the US would need BBB or legislature with similar climate ambitions to actually be on the right track.
Nordhouse's link [1] shows that if nations keep their commitments by 2030, it will be 2.4, which is much better than 3 degrees, but significantly higher than 2. Optimistically, warming could be kept to 1.9 degrees if long-term commitments are all kept.
So it's fair to point out that there's still time, but I don't think dismissing critics like Thunberg is fair. Without holding nations to their commitments like she's doing, it's much more likely we won't do any better than the current 3 degree projection.
[0]: https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_Preliminary_Report_102...
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-do-cop26-promises-keep-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698751
If only activists had never resorted to hyperbole, people would have seen through the vast, well-funded web of climate denial. They'd have Done Their Own Research (tm) and reached a reasonable and non-controversial approach to tackling climate change.
I realize that sarcasm never reads well on the Internet, but it's the natural response to a statement so stupid that there's no alternative but to repeat it in astonishment.
I do wish that climate activists were always correct and never hyperbolic. That would be great. But it's a persistent falsehood that people would change their minds if only it weren't for the missteps by activists.
Climate denial is not "misleading". It's active, deliberately constructed misinformation, which a ton of people accept because it aligns with their ideology. Even people who are nominally intelligent enough to figure it out. I've even seen them claim that they'd believe the truth if only there weren't some activist out there somewhere so said the wrong thing and therefore they're happy to cut off their entire head to spite their face.