@jackofalltrades@mas.to
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

jackofalltrades

@jackofalltrades@mas.to

I'm here to learn about the world and work through my climate grief.

I post about politics, climate change, economics, philosophy, being a father, programming, games, and more.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

jackofalltrades, to random
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

"Many studies have found weak negative or positive correlations between climate concerns, air travel practices, and emission levels. Travellers deal with tensions between the benefits of flying and its environmental impact by applying various strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance instead of changing behaviour."

This "instead of changing behaviour" is why we are doomed. 😭

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2023.2214344

jbzfn, to random
@jbzfn@mastodon.social avatar

The last stage in threat modeling is realizing it's all pointless once the next Carrington Event happens.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@jbzfn Great, another possibility to consider...

"It has been suggested that a geomagnetic storm on the scale of the solar storm of 1859 today would cause billions or even trillions of dollars of damage to satellites, power grids and radio communications, and could cause electrical blackouts on a massive scale that might not be repaired for weeks, months, or even years."

jackofalltrades, to random
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

"Humans have essentially painted themselves into a corner. We have to keep using fossil fuels to maintain the population, but if we do that, eventually we will run out of fossil fuels and the population will collapse. Sure, we could produce more renewables and try to use fewer fossil fuels, but that would only delay the inevitable.

There is no way out of this mess."

https://medium.com/@CollapseSurvival/overshoot-why-its-already-too-late-to-save-civilization-e834cb4ec694

NikoEcon, to random

has recently been under discussion, most recently by @spignal. I've recently tried to read up on it, as I was teaching a course under the title ‘Global Environmental Challenges’ to a bunch of IR/PolEcon students. Some thoughts. 1/N https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/05/18/meet-the-lefty-europeans-who-want-to-shrink-the-economy

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon Thank you for this thread, very interesting. I will definitely check out Dasgupta Review.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon

"Mainstream " can be a code word for "capitalism" as a whole. movement is looking for outside-the-box (of capitalism) solutions to our problems.

The reason for this radical approach is because the within-the-box solutions have been tried already, and they simply do not work. The existing power structures easily resist change. Now we're out of time, is already wrecking havoc on the economy, and radical changes look like the only viable alternative.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon Mainstream approach to the topic of is best exemplified by the work of William Nordhaus.

His conclusion was that "the cost – measured in lost economic growth — of capping global warming under three degrees Celsius overwhelms the benefits of avoided impacts."

Which is pretty delusional if you know anything about climate change.

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-climate-economics-nobel-good.html

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon There are many good critiques of this from within the economics profession. Steve Keen comes to mind: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856

I don't know if you would consider him mainstream. I see him as a kind of radical.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon Yes, we haven't seen a proper carbon pricing, and we will never see it, that's the whole point! Politics cannot be separated from . Current economic system gives big energy companies both the incentive to keep using fossil fuels and unjust influence on politics to not interfere in any meaningful way.

Naomi Klein documented that in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate".

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon @Brendanjones Fossil fuels are like a big battery storing ancient sunlight that accumulated over millennia. We use them everywhere: as fuel, as fertilizer, as inputs in production of many materials, etc. It could be argued that there would be almost no economic growth without fossil fuels.

Now the proponents of green growth say that we can replace all of them with . All the machines, all the materials, and just in time before impacts of make things harder.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@NikoEcon @Brendanjones Steady state really interest me, but it raises the same question as in terms of "how do we get from here to there"?

In particular, I wonder about . As I understand it, debt is a claim on future economic activity. If the economy stops growing eventually we're going to hit a major debt crisis.

Unfortunately, compounding impacts of or peak oil or another pandemic may also trigger a debt crisis.

How do we get rid of the debt?

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@Brendanjones @Pampa @NikoEcon He answered the question in another branch of the thread: https://econtwitter.net/@NikoEcon/110431499776809044

He's right that debt is a distributional issue, although that doesn't say much. The whole of economy is about distribution of resources and labor.

War, can be argued, is also about distribution. Ultimately that's how property rights / money / debt is enforced - through violence.

Asking for debt forgiveness is like asking for the agressor to stop the war. Utterly ineffective.

jackofalltrades, to random
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

"The up-front energy investment in renewable energy infrastructures has not been visible as a hurdle thus far, as we have had surplus energy to invest (and smartly, at that; if only we had started in earnest earlier!). Against a backdrop of energy decline—which I feel will be the only motivator strong enough to make us serious about a replacement path—we may find ourselves paralyzed by the Trap."

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

#climateChange #energy #greenGrowth

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@nebulousmenace Money cost is a very poor approximation of the material / energy cost, as it doesn't take into account environmental damage or the time it takes for nature to replenish used resources.

Our industrial civilization depends on continuous destruction of nature and exploitation of limited resources.

That's why it's very hard to come up with the real cost of renewables. Their production depends on a global industrial machinery that for the most part still runs on fossil fuels.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@zenkat @nebulousmenace @RD4Anarchy I don't think that's a fair assessment. You are the one making a value judgment about what is "plausible" and what is "lacking".

The point of this whole discussion is whether deployment of renewables in the current industrial growing economy is a realistic method of reducing our emissions.

So far the amazing growth of renewables did not contribute to reduction in emissions, so it is still up in the air whether that is a plausible way forward.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@zenkat @nebulousmenace @RD4Anarchy Transition to renewables must be coupled with intentional of the economy, otherwise we will not prevent catastrophic effects of . Our civilization is on a very strict timer and "green" transition in a global economy that is expected to grow 3% each year (= double in size every 23 years) will fail, as the growth in energy demand will undercut decarbonization efforts.

Jason Hickel described it succinctly here: https://mastodon.world/@MatthiasSchmelzer/109993443853083855

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@RD4Anarchy @zenkat @nebulousmenace To add to that:

It is possible there is no solution to our predicament. That wouldn't make the description of the problem invalid or fallacious, would it?

Framing the problem as one of "long-term" sustainability may be invalid in itself. Many problems of overshoot, including will unravel within our lifetime. Our problems are immediate and dire.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@RD4Anarchy @zenkat @nebulousmenace I would prefer for the system to undergo controlled contraction rather than a collapse. For this to happen people need to be aware that we're in overshoot and the system can't go on growing like it does, green or otherwise. So far whenever I challenge technofixes I am met with opposition and unfaltering optimism. We have enough of everything, steady lads! I feel this is misguided. The longer this goes on the more likely collapse becomes.

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@RD4Anarchy I am not sure if that recognition isn't surface level.

If you think about people that lived before industrialization they didn't have any expectation of "progress". They were content having a good life that looked pretty much like the life their parents had.

Fast forward to today and you can't move people to save the freaking planet unless you promise them "a better tomorrow", solarpunk, green, harmonious, futuristic technoutopia of convenience and leisure.

@zenkat @nebulousmenace

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@zenkat

What I think @ArrowbearMoore was alluding to is that the situation may be hopeless on a global scale. There is nothing we can do to affect decisions made by the leaders of China, India, OPEC, etc. neither we can convince or educate 8 billion people.

Most of what we can do is local: within ourselves, our family and community. That's where we can place our hope.

@RD4Anarchy @nebulousmenace

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@zenkat

The way I like to think of it is like getting a cancer diagnosis. People need time to process it, but many find a way to move forward and appreciate life without hoping for a miraculous cure or denying their condition.

I also touched on this recently in another thread: https://mas.to/@jackofalltrades/110435974243535340

@ArrowbearMoore @RD4Anarchy @nebulousmenace

jackofalltrades,
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

@zenkat

The thing is that we are not "transitioning to an economy based on renewables". What we are doing is continuing to use fossil fuels to build new sources of energy. There doesn't seem to be a limit to our consumption. We keep on burning more and more fossil fuels every year.

Electrifying the grid while everyone keeps driving private EVs and participating in consumerist rat race will not solve our problems.

@ArrowbearMoore @RD4Anarchy @nebulousmenace
@breadandcircuses

jackofalltrades, to random
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

"""
Imagine if a corporation used Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounting to do its books: it would be adding all its income and expenses together to get a final number. Nobody would think that’s a very good indication of how well that business was doing. Herman Daly, a former senior economist at the World Bank, said that, “the current national accounting system treats the earth as a business in liquidation.”
"""

https://theconversation.com/beyond-gdp-are-there-better-ways-to-measure-well-being-33414

jackofalltrades, to random
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

Every week I remember about on a Saturday, but not this time! 😂

All good people on the list, give them a follow if you haven't already:

@adamjcook
@CrazyMyra
@jbzfn
@justafrog
@Pece
@rcteske
@RD4Anarchy

jackofalltrades, to random
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

"The United States is wiring Ukraine with sensors that can detect‌‌ bursts of radiation from a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb and can confirm the identity of the attacker.

In part, the goal is to make sure that if Russia detonates a radioactive weapon on Ukrainian soil, its atomic signature and Moscow’s culpability could be verified."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/28/science/ukraine-nuclear-radiation-sensors.html

jackofalltrades, to food
@jackofalltrades@mas.to avatar

Discussing triggers in people a cognitive dissonance similar to . Bargaining and avoidance abound.

"But I love the taste of meat and cheese."
"We can kill them in humane way."
"I only buy organic meat."
"Animals are not sentient."

Not so different from:

"But I love traveling the world via plane."
"We can just switch to renewables and we'll be fine."
"I already drive an EV."
"Climate is always changing."

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • modclub
  • InstantRegret
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • tacticalgear
  • megavids
  • ngwrru68w68
  • everett
  • tester
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • thenastyranch
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •