[beatpanda]

We have 16 years at current burn rates to end fossil fuels, and there is 0 political will to do anything on the scale it will take to do that. The emissions standards were great, I agree, but in the face of the challenge they're meant to address, ultimately meaningless.

The emissions standards Obama proposed in the campaign were far more ambitious, and it went along with a plan to put a price on carbon that is 100% dead in the water with no chance of ever being revisited in the next 4 years, if ever.

Every little bit counts, but when you think about what's possible with the scale of the U.S. government, versus what's actually happened, it's depressing.

[venus]

> We have 16 years at current burn rates to end fossil fuels

16 years? Where did you get that figure? What is this deadline you're talking about?

[vecinu]

I am just going to point out the fact that he made that figure up.

[sac2171]

Even Musk and Tesla are partially assisted by the government...

http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transpo...

[pod4369]

"We have 16 years at current burn rates to end fossil fuels"

And what's your source for this?

[beatpanda]

For everybody wondering where '16 years' comes from, Google 'Global warming's terrifying new math' by Bill McKibben, so that you can shift from attacking my credibility to his.

[venus]

I read that article (again - I read it when it was first published) and it doesn't mention the number 16 anywhere.

Look, I am broadly sympathetic to your point of view (I think). I agree we need to take drastic measures to control CO2. I think that fracking and methane hydrate are going to be fucking disasters if we don't start actively sequestering CO2. Actually, I think the methane thing seals the deal - the reductionists have utterly lost and we now need to concentrate on harm mitigation.

None of which changes the fact that you pulled "16 years" out of your ass and what for? What did it get you? I'll tell you - it got you everyone ignoring your main point and concentrating on the (indefensible) number you made up. Well, I hope you learned your lesson.

[beatpanda]

Page 2, middle of the second paragraph:

>In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school.

The article was written in July of 2012. At the time of writing the estimated global carbon budget (the amount of carbon we can burn without increasing global temperature more than 2 degrees celsius) was 565 gigatons.

Carbon emissions in 2011 were estimated at 31.6 gigatons, a 3.2% increase over 2010, according to the article, and assuming a 3% growth rate in carbon emissions, we'll hit the limit in 16 years.

For the record, according to the journal Nature Climate Change (via the BBC, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703), total carbon emissions were higher in 2011 than reported in McKibben's article, given that we reached an estimated 35.6 gigatons in 2012, reported to be an increase of 2.6% over the previous year.

So, yeah, it's in the article, I'm sorry you have a hard time giving such an important piece of information a close reading, but there you go.

>I hope you learned your lesson

Indeed.

[beatpanda]

I love how this got downvoted and the guy calling me a liar didn't.

[venus]

Huh. You're right; I totally missed that.

And I didn't call you a liar. The world isn't black and white like that, OK?

Nonetheless, you singled out this easily-missable page 2 speculation and cast it out like a solid gold internationally accepted fact. That's what I, and perhaps others, took issue with. I'm not disagreeing with you just to be an asshole. Nothing drastic is going to happen in 16.0 years.

The funny thing is I basically agree with you, but you should stop hanging your entire arguments on obscure, debatable predictions from page two of articles on some site last year.

> >I hope you learned your lesson > Indeed.

Learn the right lesson. People are not out to attack you, well not me anyway. Just change the way you construct the argument.

[beatpanda]

Wow. You're still arguing with me about this? You were wrong. Admit you were wrong and move on. Jesus Christ.

[danso]

...and what's your argument here? Even if that 16 year figure were true and even if 100 Elon Musks came about to take on the climate challenge...that's still not enough to fix the climate problem. And again, you're conveniently forgetting that policies of the Obama administration allowed Elon Musk to be in the position he is in the first place.

> Every little bit counts, but when you think about what's possible with the scale of the U.S. government, versus what's actually happened, it's depressing.

[insert metaphor about big ship turning vs small ship]

Optimism is good. But to disregard the many messy, complicated things that put us in the current status quo in favor of some Hollywood save-the-world fantasy is no less delusional than the optimists in politics and non-profits that you deride.

[beatpanda]

>even if 100 Elon Musks came about to take on the climate challenge...that's still not enough to fix the climate problem.

Those are just words. I say that 100 people with the same talent as Elon Musk working at the same scale on climate change would already have the problem solved.

>But to disregard the many messy, complicated things that put us in the current status quo...

The U.S. government starts wars over access to fossil fuels. It murders people by the thousands for it. It provides billions of dollars in subsidies to the most profitable corporations on Earth to ensure that its citizens don't pay too high of a price for it. It puts people in jail for disrupting the illegal sale of public land to corporations who want to exploit it to find more fossil fuels.

It is now even fighting with other countries for the right to exploit land for oil extraction that is only navigable because of climate change.

And you want me to believe that a measly couple hundred million to a few billion dollars for renewable energy is evidence that politics works?

For every example you can present where the U.S. government has had a marginal impact on the viability of alternative energy companies, there are many, many more where it is artificially extending the era of cheap fossil fuel, often through violence. So on this particular issue, it's not just that government is ineffective, it's that it is actively doing harm. As we speak. At the same time that all the worst predictions of climate scientists are coming to pass.