These plots represent the fraction of
20 Gt carbon equivalent emission/year reductions target (from first reference) that can be reached with individual high impact actions (from second reference), starting with 2019, and going till 2030. The time evolution of the high impact actions are assumed to follow the logistic form:
f[t]=(Sum_over countries[population*impact per capita]/(1+Exp[a+b(t-2019)], a (unitless) is assumed to be 7 which
makes the initial adoption of high impact actions (except 1 less child, which will never happen except in places like china who value national stability over individual freedom) about 0.1% of population,
and 2 values of the rate of adoption b (unit=1/years) are shown: b=-0.5 and b=-1.0. We see that
we can’t reach the target no matter how fast the population gets infected, with just US, Australia,
Canada and the EU. For comparison, the AIDS epidemic has b=-0.8.
Other assumptions:
1. only the adult population matters. Children under 18 are either guaranteed to adopt high impact
actions or are compensated for by dying adults (all developed nations have pretty stable populations).
2. Third world is not going to make things worse with more population and energy and carbon intensive lifestyle
But, this is only individual action! What about government action? It doesn't help. Even if we combine the two, we still can't get to 2C. I am assuming that the drastic (and unrealistic, but let's be generous) "CO2e minimizing" scenario simulated in: https://us.energypolicy.solutions/scenarios/home# is correct, that the reduction predicted for the US is proportional to the impact*population ratio relative to US, Australia,
Canada and the EU combined from the first reference below, and that we can get separate gains from individual and govt action (which is not true, they're overlapping, but let's be generous and pretend like we are not double counting).
Here are the results:
There are also a bunch of suggestions for carbon sequestration, but if we actually do the numbers for say, acreage involved, cost involved, food sacrificed and risks due to GMOs we see that they are all evaporate on closer examination (some call it vaporware).
Given what the numbers say, it seems to me that the best response to our predicament is to not waste energy and time trying to stop global warming, but to spend all of our time and energy figuring out
1. What is the root problem where we messed up and
2. If I'm correct that the root problem is a system with insufficient local (in both time and space) feedbacks (which relies on global feedbacks like global warming, and peak oil), then we need to figure out how to build a system with sufficient local feedbacks. Most people won't adopt it, but if it's a better system, with a higher fitness in its local environment, the ones who don't will die out eventually (not because of global warming, but because they will be outcompeted by the adopters, who stop competing in the global economy), while the adopters will survive, and hopefully thrive.
The situation is similar to people who come up with perpetual motion machines. We don't have to inspect every one of these designs to know that they are not going to work, unless they somehow violate the first or second law of thermodynamics (which are pretty basic). Unless a technology, a policy, or some other intervention addresses how to have a culture with local feedbacks, we can disregard it as a waste of time. It's not like pre-industrial civilizations did not sometimes destroy themselves and a few other species, but they DID NOT IMPACT THE WHOLE GLOBE. Local feedbacks lead to environmentalism as a consequence, instead of an external intervention. Of course there are benefits to a global economy, such as global communications and increased efficiency of production, otherwise it would have never evolved. Perhaps we can trade off some of these benefits for the benefit of avoiding flooding, pestilence and famines? It's not clear to me how to do this without abandoning the industrial mode of production. Maybe we can just keep global communication and abandon global production/consumption? But communication has a material basis! Computers take a lot of energy and materials and so do servers. A compromise may be possible.
Of course I could be wrong, and it would be nice if someone showed me my error. Perhaps this is too complex to figure out if I'm right or wrong, and we need to try as many strategies as possible? I think this strategy-diversity is a great meta-strategy for random Darwinian mutations, but we can do better with our evolved capacity for reasoning and forethought. We can test some ideas in our heads and with computers before we try them in real life, and eliminate many of them thus. And then unite around the few strategies that remain, instead of dissipating our energies and wasting our time on the random meta-strategy.
There seems to be a general resistance to fundamental change, not surprisingly. Most people can't even conceive of an alternative to industrial production, despite the fact that our species has used other modes for most of its existence.
Here are a few analogies that are not useful:
1. we are going to get hit by an asteroid and we need to figure out how to blow it up. No--the asteroid in this case is not something external, we have created it and continue to create it with our industrial mode of production.
2. (This from Greta Thunberg) We have a child in the middle of a highway and we need to go save it from the cars and trucks. No--we are the child and we are the cars and trucks, by how we produce and consume. It is not something external.
Here is a useful analogy: We're on the Titanic and we just hit the iceberg. We can choose to stay on the ship till the last minute trying to fix it, or we can try to get on the lifeboats while there is still time, and maybe even redesign the boat so the same thing doesn't happen again.
Local feedbacks:
1. I have rain from my rain barrels. I need to take care of that water, filter it, store it away from sun and insects, keep it warm in winter and not waste it. I need to poop in something else besides water, since it is so precious. People who get city water waste it and pollute it (e.g. by pooping in it). The money feedback is too weak to do otherwise.
2. Our fields are plowed by horses (well not yet, but hopefully soon). I treat them well unlike the slaves that work in the tractor factory whom I know nothing about because they are too far removed from my grain.
3. I cut, split and stack my wood for the winter heat. I make sure that I do it from dead trees or replant trees so this heating can continue in future years. I have a relatively clean wood burning stove so I don't get lung cancer (and same for my friends and neighbors). I don't burn more than I need because it is too much work to process all that wood. The natural gas in my parents boiler might have unknown nasty effects on those that extract it, and on global warming. (I still use propane for much cooking because it is so much faster and more convenient in winter than using rocket stove.
4. I mass produce milk (not really, this is for illustration purposes). In order to stay competitive in the global market, I therefore use all kinds of machines, materials and energy that can have negative global consequences on people and nature. The negative (as well as positive, but this is non-sequitur) impacts/costs of the mass production are global (to others, in other places and to future generations), but the incentives/benefits (money) are here and now. In contrast if I have a cow and don't treat her well, use bad hygiene or bad pasture practices I feel the impact to myself, from my neighbors who drink the milk (or eat the cheese, or share the pasture) and pretty quickly.
The situation is similar to people who come up with perpetual motion machines. We don't have to inspect every one of these designs to know that they are not going to work, unless they somehow violate the first or second law of thermodynamics (which are pretty basic). Unless a technology, a policy, or some other intervention addresses how to have a culture with local feedbacks, we can disregard it as a waste of time. It's not like pre-industrial civilizations did not sometimes destroy themselves and a few other species, but they DID NOT IMPACT THE WHOLE GLOBE. Local feedbacks lead to environmentalism as a consequence, instead of an external intervention. Of course there are benefits to a global economy, such as global communications and increased efficiency of production, otherwise it would have never evolved. Perhaps we can trade off some of these benefits for the benefit of avoiding flooding, pestilence and famines? It's not clear to me how to do this without abandoning the industrial mode of production. Maybe we can just keep global communication and abandon global production/consumption? But communication has a material basis! Computers take a lot of energy and materials and so do servers. A compromise may be possible.
Of course I could be wrong, and it would be nice if someone showed me my error. Perhaps this is too complex to figure out if I'm right or wrong, and we need to try as many strategies as possible? I think this strategy-diversity is a great meta-strategy for random Darwinian mutations, but we can do better with our evolved capacity for reasoning and forethought. We can test some ideas in our heads and with computers before we try them in real life, and eliminate many of them thus. And then unite around the few strategies that remain, instead of dissipating our energies and wasting our time on the random meta-strategy.
There seems to be a general resistance to fundamental change, not surprisingly. Most people can't even conceive of an alternative to industrial production, despite the fact that our species has used other modes for most of its existence.
Here are a few analogies that are not useful:
1. we are going to get hit by an asteroid and we need to figure out how to blow it up. No--the asteroid in this case is not something external, we have created it and continue to create it with our industrial mode of production.
2. (This from Greta Thunberg) We have a child in the middle of a highway and we need to go save it from the cars and trucks. No--we are the child and we are the cars and trucks, by how we produce and consume. It is not something external.
Here is a useful analogy: We're on the Titanic and we just hit the iceberg. We can choose to stay on the ship till the last minute trying to fix it, or we can try to get on the lifeboats while there is still time, and maybe even redesign the boat so the same thing doesn't happen again.
Local feedbacks:
1. I have rain from my rain barrels. I need to take care of that water, filter it, store it away from sun and insects, keep it warm in winter and not waste it. I need to poop in something else besides water, since it is so precious. People who get city water waste it and pollute it (e.g. by pooping in it). The money feedback is too weak to do otherwise.
2. Our fields are plowed by horses (well not yet, but hopefully soon). I treat them well unlike the slaves that work in the tractor factory whom I know nothing about because they are too far removed from my grain.
3. I cut, split and stack my wood for the winter heat. I make sure that I do it from dead trees or replant trees so this heating can continue in future years. I have a relatively clean wood burning stove so I don't get lung cancer (and same for my friends and neighbors). I don't burn more than I need because it is too much work to process all that wood. The natural gas in my parents boiler might have unknown nasty effects on those that extract it, and on global warming. (I still use propane for much cooking because it is so much faster and more convenient in winter than using rocket stove.
4. I mass produce milk (not really, this is for illustration purposes). In order to stay competitive in the global market, I therefore use all kinds of machines, materials and energy that can have negative global consequences on people and nature. The negative (as well as positive, but this is non-sequitur) impacts/costs of the mass production are global (to others, in other places and to future generations), but the incentives/benefits (money) are here and now. In contrast if I have a cow and don't treat her well, use bad hygiene or bad pasture practices I feel the impact to myself, from my neighbors who drink the milk (or eat the cheese, or share the pasture) and pretty quickly.
References:
