So, climate change is an issue that I claim I have high support for fixing, but it's also the one that I feel weakest on policies. A lot of this is because it is out of my domain. I'm most comfortable making policies related to say, government safety nets. Environmentalism is out of my domain and my understanding of complex science issues like this are a bit out of my expertise. To make good policy on climate, I need to have an intimate understanding of climate change, the root causes, and how to fix it. I understand much of this is due to greenhouse gases and other pollution, but again, I'm not really an environmental scientist. So this is really just my first attempt to really wade into the subject and have an opinion of my own. Previously I just looked at plans other candidates put out and chose them, but I never really had understanding to make my own climate plan. it's a tall order, and for now, I would just like to get a basic understanding of the problem.
So, let's go to a reputable source I got from the top of google that should be adequate for a basic understanding of the issue: NASA. I take it we can trust NASA analysis on this, it's a pretty high brow scientific agency, correct?
According to NASA, greenhouse gas is the core problem. It mentions five different gases, CO2, Nitrous oxide, methane, chloroflourocarbons, and water vapor. And while some gases exist naturally, human activity is throwing way too many in the atmosphere. From here on out, I will quote and respond to interesting quotes from the article.
Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.
So, the big thing is fossil fuels. We need to get rid of fossil fuels. Especially coal and oil. Which means clean energy initiatives make sense.
In its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientific experts from countries all over the world, concluded that it is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.
And yes, this is caused by people. Our way of life under modern capitalism is causing this.
Beyond that, the article goes into proving it isn't just sun cycles, which isn't particularly interesting from a policy perspective. No need to convince me it isn't natural. I know some denialists emphasize that to try to insist we can just keep living like we do, but yeah. Most evidence seems to insist it is people.
Second article from google. The EPA. Environmental protective agency. Another government agency that should be rather authoritative, given its their job to make policy to prevent this stuff. Let's see what they say.
This article seems to focus on the same kind of info from the NASA article. Climate change is real, it's man made, and it's caused by greenhouse gases. It is more detailed than the NASA article, showing fancy charts showing how CO2 in the atmosphere is way higher than it used to be, and this isn't just cyclical. And then it ends without going into details. NEXT!
Ah, the UN has an article. And here they discuss stuff in more detail, stuff that could be useful from a policy perspective.
Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
FOSSIL. FUELS. Okay. 75% of all greenhouse emissions. 90% of all CO2. We need to get off of the fossil fuels.
And they have a detailed discussion of various causes of these emissions.
Generating power
Generating electricity and heat by burning fossil fuels causes a large chunk of global emissions. Most electricity is still generated by burning coal, oil, or gas, which produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide – powerful greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat. Globally, a bit more than a quarter of electricity comes from wind, solar and other renewable sources which, as opposed to fossil fuels, emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.
Sounds like we need to invest in more renewable energy. Wind, solar, MAYBE nuclear. Done properly, nuclear only emits water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, but I'm not sure if it's particularly dangerous. Questions for later.
Manufacturing goods
Manufacturing and industry produce emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to produce energy for making things like cement, iron, steel, electronics, plastics, clothes, and other goods. Mining and other industrial processes also release gases, as does the construction industry. Machines used in the manufacturing process often run on coal, oil, or gas; and some materials, like plastics, are made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels. The manufacturing industry is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
This may be a little trickier to deal with. While getting rid of fossil fuels seems like priority one, we need to manufacture things we need, and if some of the stuff like plastics comes from fossil fuels directly, well, im not sure we can really fully wean ourselves off of that. Still, it seems like if we use cleaner forms of energy, that we can solve at least part of the problem.
Cutting down forests
Cutting down forests to create farms or pastures, or for other reasons, causes emissions, since trees, when they are cut, release the carbon they have been storing. Each year approximately 12 million hectares of forest are destroyed. Since forests absorb carbon dioxide, destroying them also limits nature’s ability to keep emissions out of the atmosphere. Deforestation, together with agriculture and other land use changes, is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
While I can understand the issues with this, as trees absorb CO2, we do need things like wood and paper, and we also need land for agriculture. Still, I can see if we're constantly deforesting areas without replacing those trees, we could be making the problem worse. We probably should have some initatives to protect forests.
Using transportation
Most cars, trucks, ships, and planes run on fossil fuels. That makes transportation a major contributor of greenhouse gases, especially carbon-dioxide emissions. Road vehicles account for the largest part, due to the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. But emissions from ships and planes continue to grow. Transport accounts for nearly one quarter of global energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. And trends point to a significant increase in energy use for transport over the coming years.
I feel like if we can just use green energy that this would solve itself. I know the left likes to focus on getting rid of cars and using public transport, but I honestly can't see americans giving up their cars. But if we weaned ourselves off of fossil fuels, this seems to be a problem that fixes itself.
Producing food
Producing food causes emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in various ways, including through deforestation and clearing of land for agriculture and grazing, digestion by cows and sheep, the production and use of fertilizers and manure for growing crops, and the use of energy to run farm equipment or fishing boats, usually with fossil fuels. All this makes food production a major contributor to climate change. And greenhouse gas emissions also come from packaging and distributing food.
This is why we probably hear going vegan is the way forward. But it goes beyond that. Clearing forests for fields increases climate change. Growing crops does. And of course, the equipment we use. Of course, again, we can probably fix this somewhat if we fix the energy problem.
Powering buildings
Globally, residential and commercial buildings consume over half of all electricity. As they continue to draw on coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and cooling, they emit significant quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. Growing energy demand for heating and cooling, with rising air-conditioner ownership, as well as increased electricity consumption for lighting, appliances, and connected devices, has contributed to a rise in energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions from buildings in recent years.
Again, going green on energy would resolve much of this...
Consuming too much
Your home and use of power, how you move around, what you eat and how much you throw away all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. So does the consumption of goods such as clothing, electronics, and plastics. A large chunk of global greenhouse gas emissions are linked to private households. Our lifestyles have a profound impact on our planet. The wealthiest bear the greatest responsibility: the richest 1 per cent of the global population combined account for more greenhouse gas emissions than the poorest 50 per cent.
Yeah I know I saw something saying that rich people flying private jets does far more for climate change than any habits individuals can do. Looking at what the top 1% is worldwide, apparently you need a net worth around $871k and only 19 million americans qualify.
To some extent climate change is caused by massive consumption. We do tend to produce a lot, and throw away a lot. Still, I think a big issue is fossil fuels.
Major takeaways
So, just to comment on the above, I just wanna really get to the summary of what the issue seems to be.
1) FOSSIL FUELS!
This is the big one. Fossil fuels are killing us. We should have tried to wean ourselves off of them decades ago, perhaps back in the 1970s when we had our first energy crisis. #1 priority, get rid of fossil fuels.
2) Maybe my anti work vision could help?
I mean, I am the guy who calls for toning down how much we work in order to live more balanced lives. Less consumerism could make things better. Also, less work means less commute times, so less fossil fuels that. Way. And do we really need to go back to the office? That's more air conditioners, more heaters pouring out greenhouse gases.
David Graeber once said before he died, if we want to save the planet, we need to stop working. It should be mentioned that COVID lockdowns did reduce greenhouse gas emissions somewhat, but only by like 7% worldwide and 12% in the US. Still it shows how much of an impact working less could have.
3) Maybe western birth control practices are for the best after all
In western nations, population growth is generally steady or slightly negative. In the US, we literally need immigration to keep us net positive. Maybe this is for the best. While economically people freak out about not having massive populations, but curbing population growth could reduce climate change. We we keep abortion legal and have widespread safe sex practices including ubiquitous birth control, it could be for the best. Let people choose when and whether to have kids. It might lead to a better world. I cant see reproducing like rabbits as a good thing.
4) Deforestation is bad
A huge reason I mentioned #3 is because more people means we need more land for agriculture, and that causes climate change because removing trees for fields is bad, and then agriculture itself, between all of the cow farts and fertilizers and machinery causes climate change.
5) Local economies?
Maybe focus on local economies to shut down greenhouse gas emissions. Currently worldwide logistics has us transporting stuff all over the world regularly. And sometimes it's not efficient. While it makes sense to pick pears in chile, package them in bangladesh, and ship them to the US for consumption from a profit perspective (save on labor costs, for example), it seems insane from a climate change perspective.
Again, to go back to the work question, the more work we make for ourselves, the worse it is for the climate.
6) I'd prefer technology over massive lifestyle changes when possible.
I do believe this can be solved somewhat by technology. More solar, wind, nuclear, electric vehicles, etc. Get rid of those fossil fuels. Maybe invest in lab grown meat over traditional farming and factory farming. While I advocate for working less, and potentially consuming less, I'd ideally prefer a vision that moves toward more automation and a world without work over one that involves returning to monke.
Also, I'm not sure how well americans will take giving up things to save the planet. Americans are selfish and the last time someone (Carter) even suggested it, it backlashed so hard the GOP dominated politics for the past 40 years, while denying climate change for much of it.
Yeah...we Americans aren't good at accepting changes. And if we can aim for methods that don't force changes as much, well, that might be better. Even my anti work vision seems too much for them based on covid lockdowns, but if it's voluntary, we'll see.
And yeah. I just wanted to get an idea of what the problem was, and come up with some rudimentary changes to fix it. Next I might look at various 2020 candidates and their climate plans. Now that I have an idea of what I'm looking for.
No comments:
Post a Comment