Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

The answer probably lies in changing the way our economies work. I don't know how anyone does that, whether it's here or in Europe.

But the truth is that there are no profits, no incentive structures to saving the planet. I doubt classical economists could even conceive of limits and constraints on extraction of pretty much anything.

The solution will evidently require some kind of unconventional thinking (at least by the standards of typical economist). However the problem I was trying to point out was that the window is closing even on the engineering side. What is much more serious problem, since there is a line after which no amount of good will or money will be able to fix it. The Europe has a pretty good streak in being a pioneer in all of this. However all of the global crisis are making it pretty hard to continue. Especially since the world isn't really following and that basically makes the whole thing not really worth it. Therefore there is now a backlash and the system will have to slow down the tempo. Since chaos in the world is just sucking too much energy and most think that now isn't really the time for large scale experiments. In the case that most of the world followed you could rationalized certain processes but without that the whole thing is becoming a turn off for many.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The solution will evidently require some kind of unconventional thinking (at least by the standards of typical economist). However the problem I was trying to point out was that the window is closing even on the engineering side. What is much more serious problem, since there is a line after which no amount of good will or money will be able to fix it. The Europe has a pretty good streak in being a pioneer in all of this. However all of the global crisis are making it pretty hard to continue. Especially since the world isn't really following and that basically makes the whole thing not really worth it. Therefore there is now a backlash and the system will have to slow down the tempo. Since chaos in the world is just sucking too much energy and most think that now isn't really the time for large scale experiments. In the case that most of the world followed you could rationalized certain processes but without that the whole thing is becoming a turn off for many.

From a realpolitik perspective, in a multipolar world where former security guarantees aren't so guaranteed, making domestic energy production more expensive while competing parts of the world are doing everything in their power to make it cheaper is suicide. The west broadly hasn't really gotten hip to this yet but they're gonna get there fast (especially with what looks to be a cold winter coming).

The worrying thing is we're starting to see declining yields from extant shale gas and oil basins across the world, and I just heard recently that companies are having a hard time gaining funding to develop small modular (nuclear) reactors, at least here in the states.

The scary math I find myself trying to figure out is whether a declining population offsets a decline in fossil fuel production.

I'm not worried about an inch of rise in sea level, I'm worried that we won't have the fuel to power our modern industrial world in the latter half of this century.

There isn't enough lithium on the planet to support EV's at scale globally. Without better battery tech we're screwed there.

If we worry about war now, one can only imagine what war will look like when access to fuel determines how much of your populace you can keep alive.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The solution will evidently require some kind of unconventional thinking (at least by the standards of typical economist). However the problem I was trying to point out was that the window is closing even on the engineering side. What is much more serious problem, since there is a line after which no amount of good will or money will be able to fix it. The Europe has a pretty good streak in being a pioneer in all of this. However all of the global crisis are making it pretty hard to continue. Especially since the world isn't really following and that basically makes the whole thing not really worth it. Therefore there is now a backlash and the system will have to slow down the tempo. Since chaos in the world is just sucking too much energy and most think that now isn't really the time for large scale experiments. In the case that most of the world followed you could rationalized certain processes but without that the whole thing is becoming a turn off for many.

IMO the whole Russia-Ukraine thing always seemed like the start of something larger. For one thing, it seemed like a return to more conventional thinking in the US after some years (since 2018 I would say) of different ideas being entertained and played with. This was upsetting, but I suppose people were elated at the existence of a real bad guy to the nation could define itself against, and everything else followed somehow. I don't like Putin (and I never have), but it was troubling that there seems like there was a lot more suspicion of "weird ideas" and "people with weird ideas" at around that time, and not from the usual quarters.

I also wonder if the foreign policy mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan made Putin think the time was right to start testing the waters in places like Georgia and Crimea, thus concluding that he could try something in Ukraine. And I wonder if this is causing sparks and tension in other places, somehow.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO the whole Russia -Ukraine thing always seemed like the start of something larger. For one thing, it seemed like a return to more conventional thinking in the US after some years (like, since 2018) of different ideas being played with and entertained. This was upsetting, but I suppose people were elated at the existence of a real bad guy to the nation could define itself against, and everything else followed. I don't like Putin (and I never have), but it was troubling that there seems like there was a lot more suspicion of "weird ideas" and "people with weird ideas" at around that time, and not from the usual quarters.

I also wonder if the foreign policy mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan made Putin think the time was right to start testing the waters in places like Georgia and Crimea, thus concluding that he could try something in Ukraine. And I wonder if this is causing sparks and tension in other places, somehow.

The bold was certainly part of Putin's calculus in deciding to launch the invasion.

 

[SensEye]

While nuclear energy is also in problems as I pointed out a few weeks ago. Especially since peak Uranium is a thing just as peak oil. Plus large parts of the world evidently aren't allowed to have nuclear reactors (just in the case you haven't noticed the topic over the years). Therefore those parts of the world will just continue to burn fossil energy. Not to mention that most of the world can't even afford nuclear energy.

Plus world's population is still growing and thus you will have to clear additional forests in order to avoid direct social and regional instability. However since crops tent to weight much less than forest trees with this replacement you are basically adding new carbon into the system. Since there is large difference in organic mass that has to go somewhere. Therefore even if we cut fossil fuel energy to zero we will still create plenty of new carbon in the atmosphere. Not to mention that large drought driven forest fires around the globe are also directly adding plenty of new carbon into the atmosphere. The carbon that no one is adding into the equation because it isn't direct product of fossil energy. This carbon is hard to "define" and thus tax, so it isn't "socially interesting". But it is evidently there in a physical sense. I mean do you realize how large carbon extraction infrastructure would have to be to compensate things at this scale ?
Etc. etc.


Therefore I think that we are coming to the point where we simply have to admit it to ourselves that we are in dead end street. Not a comforting thought but if you go deep enough that is the most logical conclusion.

I hear you. But one never knows. I mean, peak oil turned out to be pretty much a nothing burger due to fracking and other new oil extraction tech. I don't really know much about carbon extraction tech, but who knows. Imagine, for example, a massive carbon extraction plant housed in Antarctica/North Pole powered by nuclear reactors. Sure it takes energy, and right now, nuclear is the only non-carbon energy dense tech on the go.

What I suggest might be completely impractical. I'm just brainstorming. But as far as I can tell, moving off fossil fuels given human nature/economic reality is equally impractical. And real world data seems to support that. So humanity needs to think outside the box.

Human kind is absolutely pathetic when it comes to long term planning and widespread cooperation. Everything falls apart when short term expediency (i.e. winning the next election) comes up. However, humanity has in the past, proven very inventive when an actual threat is looming in the near term.

I think if global warming doomsday is as near or as dire as the media likes to play it up as (the media has always got fear factor dialed up to 10) humanity is hooped. I'm not sure it will be, but I'll probably be dead before the truth is really known.

I can clearly recall (cuz I'm kinda old) back in 1997 (Kyoto protocol) the standard mantra was: if we don't get our shit together by 2025 we're screwed. With 2025 just around the corner, the new mantra is: if we don't get our shit together by 2050 we're screwed. I imagine in 2050 the can will get kicked down the road to 2075. Either that, or we will have experienced the predicted doom, or new science will mean we found a way to dodge the bullet.

 

[Virtual ghost]

From a realpolitik perspective, in a multipolar world where former security guarantees aren't so guaranteed, making domestic energy production more expensive while competing parts of the world are doing everything in their power to make it cheaper is suicide. The west broadly hasn't really gotten hip to this yet but they're gonna get there fast (especially with what looks to be a cold winter coming).

The worrying thing is we're starting to see declining yields from extant shale gas and oil basins across the world, and I just heard recently that companies are having a hard time gaining funding to develop small modular (nuclear) reactors, at least here in the states.

The scary math I find myself trying to figure out is whether a declining population offsets a decline in fossil fuel production.

I'm not worried about an inch of rise in sea level, I'm worried that we won't have the fuel to power our modern industrial world in the latter half of this century.

There isn't enough lithium on the planet to support EV's at scale globally. Without better battery tech we're screwed there.

If we worry about war now, one can only imagine what war will look like when access to fuel determines how much of your populace you can keep alive.

I am well aware of all this. Doing the energy transition in peace is quite a challenge. While doing it during the series of wars and global tensions is basically impossible. Especially since this means major disruption of all supply chains. What leads to low supplies and inflation. What then means that people wouldn't have the desire to do any "experiments". All of this is exactly why I said that we have to start thinking about the idea that the climate change isn't going to get solved in time.


What means that the developed world basically has only one option left. Which is to dig in when it comes to infrastructure and supply chains as much as possible and hope that it doesn't get too ugly. Not so developed countries close to the equator will suffer heavily but there is little what you can do about that at this point. 3, 4 or 5 children per mother is simply unsustainable however you take it. As soon we we passed the mark of some 2 billion people on the planet we kinda made the world where we will hit certain walls in terms of resources and keeping things together. So every new billion only adds new walls along the road and we are now on the path to 9 billion. What can only make unstable world in the end.


Regarding sea level rise, there is enough of land ice to rise sea levels by something like 70 meters, what is 200+ feet). Therefore if even 2 to 3% of that ice melts by the end of the century the world will lose most of it's coastal cities (and related tourist industry). People aren't scared of this because the process of melt didn't even start yet. However once you knock the climate out of balance that should lead to massive melt and adding of various feedbacks. In other words as you pointed out we are running out of all forms of energy, so we evidently wouldn't have enough of it to build new cities somewhere more inland.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is simple the west

I hear you. But one never knows. I mean, peak oil turned out to be pretty much a nothing burger due to fracking and other new oil extraction tech. I don't really know much about carbon extraction tech, but who knows. Imagine, for example, a massive carbon extraction plant housed in Antarctica/North Pole powered by nuclear reactors. Sure it takes energy, and right now, nuclear is the only non-carbon energy dense tech on the go.

What I suggest might be completely impractical. I'm just brainstorming. But as far as I can tell, moving off fossil fuels given human nature/economic reality is equally impractical. And real world data seems to support that. So humanity needs to think outside the box.

Human kind is absolutely pathetic when it comes to long term planning and widespread cooperation. Everything falls apart when short term expediency (i.e. winning the next election) comes up. However, humanity has in the past, proven very inventive when an actual threat is looming in the near term.

I think if global warming doomsday is as near or as dire as the media likes to play it up as (the media has always got fear factor dialed up to 10) humanity is hooped. I'm not sure it will be, but I'll probably be dead before the truth is really known.

I can clearly recall (cuz I'm kinda old) back in 1997 (Kyoto protocol) the standard mantra was: if we don't get our shit together by 2025 we're screwed. With 2025 just around the corner, the new mantra is: if we don't get our shit together by 2050 we're screwed. I imagine in 2050 the can will get kicked down the road to 2075. Either that, or we will have experienced the predicted doom, or new science will mean we found a way to dodge the bullet.

First of all peak oil is still a thing and a major problem. We manage to buy time with new tech but that can't last forever.


Plus how you are doing and when you get screwed depends on how well you are going. After all now all countries get screwed at the same level of the process. Because development and geography are a huge factor in all of this. On the other hand there is certain inertia in the Earth's systems. In other words if you miss carbon target in 2020 the real consequence of that may not be visible before 2035 (for example). However all of this is what media never manage to explain to the people. So instead you just have this mess of headlines that are confusing to people that lack any kinds of serious scientific education. Especially since most people don't have the natural instinct of planning decades ahead. Average people just don't have the mindset that deals with inertia that is expressed in decades. Because average life has much more direct connection of cause and consequence.

 

[Virtual ghost]

IMO the whole Russia-Ukraine thing always seemed like the start of something larger. For one thing, it seemed like a return to more conventional thinking in the US after some years (since 2018 I would say) of different ideas being entertained and played with. This was upsetting, but I suppose people were elated at the existence of a real bad guy to the nation could define itself against, and everything else followed somehow. I don't like Putin (and I never have), but it was troubling that there seems like there was a lot more suspicion of "weird ideas" and "people with weird ideas" at around that time, and not from the usual quarters.

I also wonder if the foreign policy mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan made Putin think the time was right to start testing the waters in places like Georgia and Crimea, thus concluding that he could try something in Ukraine. And I wonder if this is causing sparks and tension in other places, somehow.

Putin simply got the idea that the west is getting weak and decided to take bigger cake than before. I already explained a number of times why Ukraine is quite important to him. However Ukraine was also important to the west, especially since it is important to Putin. And now we are where we are.


However in the big picture this is just one more conflict/tension between east and west that are fighting for dominance in the world. This is exactly why I said that it would be a good idea to end this cultural civil war in the US. Since there is evidently a bigger fish to care about.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I am well aware of all this. Doing the energy transition in peace is quite a challenge. While doing it during the series of wars and global tensions is basically impossible. Especially since this means major disruption of all supply chains. What leads to low supplies and inflation. What then means that people wouldn't have the desire to do any "experiments". All of this is exactly why I said that we have to start thinking about the idea that the climate change isn't going to get solved in time.


What means that the developed world basically has only one option left. Which is to dig in when it comes to infrastructure and supply chains as much as possible and hope that it doesn't get too ugly. Not so developed countries close to the equator will suffer heavily but there is little what you can do about that at this point. 3, 4 or 5 children per mother is simply unsustainable however you take it. As soon we we passed the mark of some 2 billion people on the planet we kinda made the world where we will hit certain walls in terms of resources and keeping things together. So every new billion only adds new walls along the road and we are now on the path to 9 billion. What can only make unstable world in the end.


Regarding sea level rise, there is enough of land ice to rise sea levels by something like 70 meters, what is 200+ feet). Therefore if even 2 to 3% of that ice melts by the end of the century the world will lose most of it's coastal cities (and related tourist industry). People aren't scared of this because the process of melt didn't even start yet. However once you knock the climate out of balance that should lead to massive melt and adding of various feedbacks. In other words as you pointed out we are running out of all forms of energy, so we evidently wouldn't have enough of it to build new cities somewhere more inland.

I come away from the same sets of data with completely different conclusions. We all need to be having more children. If things keep up, we'll see a depopulation at least as bad as the Black Death. The entire worlds economic model is based on growth. This growth requirement has lead (stupidly) to the great push for ruinous immigration in the west. Immigrants who arrive here then quickly stop having as many kids themselves. Luckily the total fertility rate of conservatives is much higher than liberals (conservative fertility advantage).

With regard to the climate stuff, we won't lose coastal cities this century. The catastrophizing of climate expectations is one of the most pernicious trends in data science. Humans have always adapted to a changing climate and will continue to do so. Is it a problem to be aware of? Sure. But so are a million other things. Unless and until people can start getting real with climate change expectations I don't see a real conversation happening around the subject. The more sky is falling predictions are made and then don't happen the more tuned out on the subject people are going to be. Many activists in the climate space stand to gain financially from the catastrophization of climate predictions, just as those in race relations stand to gain from the inflation of racism. In both cases this financial incentive to make the problem worse has done lasting damage to both the public and politics.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I come away from the same sets of data with completely different conclusions. We all need to be having more children. If things keep up, we'll see a depopulation at least as bad as the Black Death. The entire worlds economic model is based on growth. This growth requirement has lead (stupidly) to the great push for ruinous immigration in the west. Immigrants who arrive here then quickly stop having as many kids themselves. Luckily the total fertility rate of conservatives is much higher than liberals (conservative fertility advantage).

With regard to the climate stuff, we won't lose coastal cities this century. The catastrophizing of climate expectations is one of the most pernicious trends in data science. Humans have always adapted to a changing climate and will continue to do so. Is it a problem to be aware of? Sure. But so are a million other things. Unless and until people can start getting real with climate change expectations I don't see a real conversation happening around the subject. The more sky is falling predictions are made and then don't happen the more tuned out on the subject people are going to be. Many activists in the climate space stand to gain financially from the catastrophization of climate predictions, just as those in race relations stand to gain from the inflation of racism. In both cases this financial incentive to make the problem worse has done lasting damage to both the public and politics.

With all due respect but you are US citizen and as such you probably haven't seen an honest debate about climate change. Your entire national circus with the media and activists is completely wrong way how to approach the entire problem. Since you turned the climate debate into what is basically " 1860s bar fight". However I will not write you a few walls of texts why Climate change is real. After all I did that on the forum plenty of times over the years.


Btw climate change requites the end to basically all immigration. Since bringing poor people into the rich country where they will consume 5 to 10 times more resources isn't exactly climate friendly. However that is the can of worms that US didn't discover yet.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

With all due respect but you are US citizen and as such you probably haven't seen an honest debate about climate change. Your entire national circus with the media and activists is completely wrong way how to approach the entire problem. Since you turned the climate debate into what is basically " 1860s bar fight". However I will not write you a few walls of texts why Climate change is real. After all I did that on the forum plenty of times over the years.


Btw climate change requites the end to basically all immigration. Since bringing poor people into the rich country where there will consume 5 to 10 times more resources isn't exactly climate friendly. However that is the can of worms that US didn't discover yet.

We live in a coastal city on one of the largest rivers in America and own property all over the city. I get texts day and night from large developers trying to buy it from us.

I've lived here for almost 40 years and have marked no change in the water. You can tell me to disbelieve my lying eyes all you want.

There's no way to make me care about it more than the marginal way in which I already do.

To be frank, naval gazing about climate change is the luxury of a west that's been so successful and has so few real problems it has to invent some for itself.

Growing multipolarity with real external threats will go a long way to getting us back to focusing on problems that matter now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok, but thus far there wasn't any observable rise of rise of sea level. The problem is that this will start to happen once you disrupt the climate system enough. Therefore once that happens there is no going back.


However rising seas aren't the real problem with climate change. The real problem is freaky and turbulent weather that will destroy more and more crops as the time goes by. What will directly rise food prices and cause inflation. While in the 3rd world and very population dense countries this will cause social collapse, which will basically take global supply chains with them. Especially since countries with such problems will start regional wars for what is left of local resources. What will in the end case chain reaction of mass illegal migration(s). In other words this is the problem that should fully hit already in this half of the century, while first warning sings are already here in plain sight. That is the real problem with climate change and everything else are side-stories.



But ok, I will not push this anymore for today. This was just for the record.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

But ok, I will not push this anymore for today. This was just for the record.

To me all the smoke from Canadian forest fires across the U.S. this summer made it real for me. That I could see outside my window. It produced an "oh, it's actually happening" response from me.

 

[The Cat]

And Miami is flooding.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ok, but thus far there wasn't any observable rise of rise of sea level. The problem is that this will start to happen once you disrupt the climate system enough. Therefore once that happens there is no going back.


However rising seas aren't the real problem with climate change. The real problem is freaky and turbulent weather that will destroy more and more crops as the time goes by. What will directly rise food prices and cause inflation. While in the 3rd world and very population dense countries this will cause social collapse, which will basically take global supply chains with them. Especially since countries with such problems will start regional wars for what is left of local resources. What will in the end case chain reaction of mass illegal migration(s). In other words this is the problem that should fully hit already in this half of the century, while first warning sings are already here in plain sight. That is the real problem with climate change and everything else are side-stories.



But ok, I will not push this anymore for today. This was just for the record.

A warming climate means more arable land not less.

As to weather.

The only thing meaningfully able to further ruin food security for the 3rd world is a continuation of the Ukr conflict (at least in the short term).

Africa in the longer term is set to have a rude awakening if growing multipolarity means we stop throwing so much money at the continent, hoping they'll get their shit together.

Or if the developed world starts to horde fertilizer like China is already doing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

A warming climate means more arable land not less.

As to weather.

View attachment 29865

The only thing meaningfully able to further ruin food security for the 3rd world is a continuation of the Ukr conflict (at least in the short term).

Africa in the longer term is set to have a rude awakening if growing multipolarity means we stop throwing so much money at the continent, hoping they'll get their shit together.

Or if the developed world starts to horde fertilizer like China is already doing.

One graph pulled out of somewhere doesn't make an argument in this broad topic. Real debate on this requires going into how rivers are made, trends with glaciers that are basically water towers of the world, acidification of the seas and their Ph level, food chains in nature that keep the world as we know it in place. What is with the migration of species. You are talking about food supply and nowhere you have mentioned insects and how they are doing (and without them there is no agriculture as we know it, without them fertilizer is basically useless). What about the changes in the amount of rain and snow in various areas. Etc. etc. Every year climate change related famine kills millions in the developing world, so this graph is simply wrong. Especially since it fails in defining what is climate related death. Most of those deaths aren't some glorious direct deaths in some epic natural disaster. Plus property deamge is a thing in all this, this isn't just about dying. After all the problem is that just about all serious data suggests that this line should go significantly up in the future. The problem is the future, not the present. The present is OKish.


I know that you wouldn't change your mind but I simply have to type it for the sake of others that are reading this. You evidently don't even know how much you don't know about this topic. This isn't some culture war that you can win with a meme.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To me all the smoke from Canadian forest fires across the U.S. this summer made it real for me. That I could see outside my window. It produced an "oh, it's actually happening" response from me.

As I said the data is here in plain sight if you want to take a look at it.
So here is an insight for those that don't remember the pictures of San Fancisico under the smoke of forest fires. In the big picture this is just a local incident, but this shows how much off track things can go if we aren't careful.

 

[Red Herring]

My daughter is almost 9 years old and the last few days have brought the first real snow of her young life ("real" in the sense of "more than just a an inch or two for a day or two"). When I grew up in the 80s and 90s the kind of weather we've had here in Germany over the last week was normal winter weather. Over the last 20 years or so German winters have increasigly been just lots of rain and temperatures above the freezing point rather than snow and ice. She had never before been able to ride a sledge. Most conversations on climate change that I've had with my kids were triggered by things like "Mummy, I really hope it will snow this winter so we can build a snowman".

15 of the 20 hottest years in Germany since the beginning of recordings in 1881 were in the 21st century (with 2022 holding the current record but 2023 set to break it).

The 1.5°C target refers to the global average. Here in Europe we already have an increase of 2°C compared to the preindustrial average and in the Arctic it's even a 3°C increase. In the US you guys have (so far!) only had an increase of a little over 1°C. So what you have seen locally so far is pretty tame in comparison to what's bound to come around soon.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeap, our winters have basically become one big November. I am also old enough to remember that it wasn't like this just a few decades ago.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The key factor is distance, so if there was mass burning on the other side of great lakes that kinda creates the buffer zone of distance. What means that the smoke isn't this dense as in SF case.