[carboy]

The only thing that can save most of humanity is a method that can scrub 100M metric tons of green houses gases from the upper atmosphere on a yearly basis.

If the earth’s climate were a person it would be 5ft tall, weigh 600lbs and eat 15,000 calories a day, and the plan to save it would be to have it reduce its food intake to 12,000 calories a day. We are not fixing anything, the earth’s climate would just get fatter a little slower.

[ForHackernews]

https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos...

"This image should terrify you. It should be on billboards.

As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the world has to zero out net carbon emissions by 2050 or so — for a good chance of avoiding 2 degrees, by around 2065.

After that, emissions have to go negative. Humanity has to start burying a lot more carbon than it throws up into the atmosphere. ... Thus far, most demonstration plants of any size attaching [carbon capture] to fossil fuel facilities have been over-budget disasters. What if we can’t rely on it? What if it never pans out?"

[beerlord]

The solutions are already in front of us.

Solar, wind and gas for electricity. No more coal. Technology already exists. Side effect: cleaner air.

Electric cars and trucks for transport. Technology already exists. Side effect: cleaner air and better cars.

No more beef. Pork, chicken, insects and plants instead. Technology already exists (has for thousands of years). Side effect: less water use, healthier diets.

Mostly these things would come faster with a broad enough carbon tax, instead they are coming slowly. I'm completely certain that we could do all of the above in 5 years.

At most the above would entail minor inconveniences for the average person. It just takes the political will to place a minor inconvenience on a population whom you hope will still vote for you.

[KozmoNau7]

>"It just takes the political will to place a minor inconvenience on a population whom you hope will still vote for you."

And this is why the future is looking so grim, unless we can somehow convince the population at large to accept this inconvenience.

The public tends to vote for people who decrease inconvenience, and shun those who propose to increase it.

How can we change the minds of millions/billions of people away from that mindset?

[hackeraccount]

It's a minor inconvenience to you - because you'd want those things to happen even if there was climate change was not a thing.

It would be as if someone suggested saying a prayer before going to bed would save the world. What's the problem, it's a 2 minute prayer? And yet a large number of people would be up in arms about it.

I understand that you're shouting "Science" before telling people how to live their lives. Hey, maybe it will work. But it's profoundly political and even if they don't articulate it as such that's how people will see it.

[KozmoNau7]

I'm not telling people how to live their lives. I'm saying that in order to not fuck up the environment even more than we already have, there will need to be massive changes to the way we live our lives, and that we'll need to accept a level of inconvenience that a lot of people won't be comfortable with.

And yes, it is political, because the only way we'll be able to counteract climate change is by concerted, collective political effort.

[beerlord]

Join a political party and propose it yourself. You would be surprised how few motivated people it takes to join up as members and change policy. Many/most people don't vote, even fewer joins parties and even fewer run for election!

[KozmoNau7]

I am already politically active, to the extent that I am able and can afford it. It very often doesn't seem to make a lick of a difference, when people just patently refuse to listen to anything that doesn't align with their prejudices.

[dangravell]

High performance buildings, both newbuild and retrofit. Another case where the problem is solved technically, but that's not the issue. The issues are organisational, political and other 'soft' reasons which make it more difficult than flicking a switch in a democracy.

[adrianN]

Right now the 600 pound person is eating 500 calories per day more each year, and the plan is to reduce the increase in calories a little bit.

For climate change, the total amount of released carbon is what matters. So far we haven't been able to even get the second derivative to point in the right direction.