You must log in or register to comment.
Why isn’t number 1 do a violence against corporations and governments until they stop? Most of the rights we have were taken via violence against the owning class. Why would the right to a planet we can live on be any different.
This guy gets it.
My list is shorter: 1. Stop burning fossil fuels.
That’s it, really. Technically there would still be other things to do, but they are trivial by comparison. Stop burning fossil fuels and the rest will follow. It will require major changes to the way the global economy works. In other words it will require major changes to the way we live our lives. Do not build any more gas power stations. Do not mine any more coal. Do not build any more diesel trucks. Do not sell any more petrol cars. Start digging up the gas lines for recycling. Stop using airplanes. Take approximately 100% of the enormous budget for road construction and maintenance and use it for electrified rail and nuclear power instead. There will be much less transport and travel. Agriculture will need to be reinvented. It is difficult to imagine. It is easy to summarize: Stop burning fossil fuels. Do it now.
This being c/collapse obviously we all know it isn’t happening, but that’s what would work.
It’s easy to summarize, difficult to imagine, even more difficult to implement. Some of your steps even require fossil fuels, that’s how deep we are in it. The resulting demand for alternatives for heat or fuel will make current deforestation seem like nothing. Any sort of agriculture big or small without some fossil fuel and/or fertilizer? Good luck with that in a good growing season.
I don’t have a solution, as what we find ourselves in is a predicament that has none. It’s just a matter of how things break, if we choose to be part of that fracturing, or just let it play out as we continue to cling to a teetering structure. Same problem, neither choice is better than the other. I’m guessing as a species we’ll do what we always do and take the least amount of change for as long as we can, then we’ll react, probably badly.
It’s impossible in the countries that do most of the polluting right now, since nobody is willing to give up anything or admit that radical changes are needed. But maybe with some luck the collapse will happen gradually enough that as things get bad, some effort can be put towards building something new before everything is completely wrecked.
Article: [list of ways to stop burning fossil fuels]
jsdz: No! My list is better! [exact same list of ways to stop burning fossil fuels.]
I didn’t claim that my list is better. Just that it’s shorter. There’s only one thing on it. One could elaborate on that one thing for the length of several books and I guess those few sentences I foolishly chose to add were too much for your taste, but the basic idea is not complicated in any way. It’s very clear what works. Stop burning fossil fuels. Right now. Nothing else.
The problem is that people tend to start by thinking of clever ways to advance humanity incrementally towards that goal. That’s the wrong place to start. It won’t happen that way. That approach has been failing miserably for several decades now and it will continue to. What we need instead is to start by honestly accepting the necessity of giving up fossil fuels right now, and then look at and accept the consequences of that. As Gail Tverberg in today’s other post says, and she knows all about oil, “we need heavy oil if our modern economy is to continue.” Well then our modern economy can not continue. We will not “maintain our lifestyle and economy.” Either we give that up along with oil, coal, and gas, or else we let it be destroyed by climate change and its consequences. The seemingly universal inability to acknowledge this when discussing what needs to be done is the point I was trying to get at. The degree of change that would be required of us is seldom suspected by readers of Forbes and never mentioned in articles like the one linked to here. It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of burning fossil fuels.
deleted by creator
Great comment
deleted by creator
How is this peace missing Veganism?
While I hate what-about-ism this would make a dent as well. I wouldn’t say vegan as the opposition would be more than fossil fuel, but absolutely a mindset change on volume and frequency.
I’m always amused that people can believe renewables can be built to replace all fossile energy production before we would be able to build any nuclear power plant. It’s a fallacious reasoning in many ways, but I guess if you repeat it enough it becomes truth?
I do support the argument that further complexifying essentials before the great decomplexification is a bad idea. However, burning a ton of fossil fuels to build alternative power sources is not a solution unless it is basically free energy - renewable alone is not sufficient justification. We need volitional degrowth. We won’t get it, but that’s what we need.
You must not be aware of how long it takes a single nuclear power plant to come online…
I do because that discussion is very common these days. 7.5 years is the mean construction time.
My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but also the time-value of money on constructing a new nuclear plant is a very real problem. Yes, we should be using a massive, mature, and mostly-carbon-neutral energy source. However, due to economic factors, we can build a lot of renewables capacity before the site planning is even done on a new nuclear power plant. It’s a lot easier to finance a new renewables facility that is generating revenue pretty quickly.
Site planning and finance can be as painful for renewable as it can be for nuclear. It’s an administrative process so the whole depends on political will and how easy they make it. It also depends on civil opposition, but nowadays you have as many eco fanatics against nuclear than you have stupid conservative against renewables.
