Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Valmy]

Yeah you are probably never going to get us to endorse intense social control except under very extreme circumstances. It kind of goes against everything we stand for. I mean what if somebody doesn't want to change where they sleep, work, shop, worship, and send their kids to play? We have to force them. Liberals, myself included, lack the stomach for that.

I don't understand this argument, as if the only other alternative to laissez-faire was statist totalitarianism. We force people to do what they do not want all the time - like pay their taxes, or dump toxic waste in reserves of potable water (oh wait). What people want is heavily conditioned by what is actually available to them, and the milieu they grew up in. This article's critique (probably misplaced, as you note), is not about picking people's churches for them. It's about curtailing urban sprawl and stopping urban planning to be at the mercy of real estate developers (who are hardly spokespeople for what 'people want').

First of all passing laws preventing you from doing things is very different from radically changing what you are already doing. I mean having you pay your taxes versus you have to move because we are leveling your subdivision is very different.

The quote sounded like changing already existing urban land use, not curtailing future planning. Reforming future planning can already be done in city government. That is not "hard work of reform". That is the normal work of reform Liberals have already been doing for decades.

Though I guess in that vein I should mention that Austin has worked diligently for two decades now trying to increase urban density and curtail the sprawl. Minsky has (and maybe you as well? I don't recall) pointed out how rather ineffective this is as the more high rises and urban density they build the more unaffordable it becomes. People like me are then pushed into surrounding suburban towns. So I don't know how effective it actually is. But how would that sort of urban planning be done on a Federal level?

[fromtia]

where we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places

City planning and zoning may be a bit outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

The proposal encapsulates the liberal delusion on climate change: that technology and spending can spare us the hard work of reform.

Yeah you are probably never going to get us to endorse intense social control except under very extreme circumstances. It kind of goes against everything we stand for. I mean what if somebody doesn't want to change where they sleep, work, shop, worship, and send their kids to play? We have to force them. Liberals, myself included, lack the stomach for that.

Dont think anyone was or is suggesting a sort of einsatzgruppen of libs descending on towns and cities across the land and throwing real americans out of their homes. I think it is absolutely important to start thinking about changing the way we do things like build towns and cities and infrastructure rather then just take an approach of business as usual, but the cars and trucks will be electric.

[Valmy]

Of course, as it should be. The author does go on to state the same thing more or less but then point out ways in which they believe 'federal incentives profoundly shape local land use already'.

Strong Towns are sort of an interesting bunch. I got involved in advocating for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the small town I live in a few years ago, attending the city council meetings and so on. A total nightmare. But it did leave me with a real interest in how our towns, cities and infrastructure get planned, built and paid for and by whom. Strong Towns essentially believe in incrementalism, and generally oppose large infrastructure projects. They also strive to be sort of apolitical, in as much as one can, so I think they came at the critique of the GND deliberately spicy like.

Gotcha. I guess I am not aware of how federal incentives impact urban planning. I can see how, for example, federal tax credits influence the building of wind farms out in rural areas. So if there is some sort of federal incentive currently discouraging one sort of urban planning over another than perhaps that might need to be reformed to encourage another type.

Also I can see why they seemed to think that urban planning was so "foundational" to combating climate change. It is their particular focus, so naturally they want us to believe it is the most important issue.

[Valmy]

Dont think anyone was or is suggesting a sort of einsatzgruppen of libs descending on towns and cities across the land and throwing real americans out of their homes.

I was thrown off by their strong language and accusations that Liberals are not ready for big tough choices.

I think it is absolutely important to start thinking about changing the way we do things like build towns and cities and infrastructure rather then just take an approach of business as usual, but the cars and trucks will be electric.

I think many cities have been thinking about that and have been for a very long time. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet to develop something we can all point to and say "there, that is what the solution is"

[fromtia]

I think many cities have been thinking about that and have been for a very long time. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet to develop something we can all point to and say "there, that is what the solution is"

I'm not aware of a single solution to having better towns and cities either but I am more or less a fan of Strong Towns and their general approach. A part of what they advocate for strongly is robust citizen participation in municipal planning, something which I have had an (unpleasant) taste of. I think that's a really important part of a better functioning democracy and a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

[Valmy]

a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?

[fromtia]

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?

Well just in the broadest sense, I think that if people participate in politics and planning at the simplest local level, questions like "should we have a bicycle lane, or should it be more Death Race 2000?" are a great way to get involved and actually have conversations with other people and organize meetings and things and discover the delight of being able in some small way to move the lever of power in your neighborhood.

If people can go from there to more fully participating at the state and federal level, more than just a popularity contest every four years with a lot of myth and emotion then yes I think that's for the best because I don't think people are so nihilistic that they'll decide to just flush civilization down the toilet because free markets or something.

I think learning to participate fully and having a less atomized culture is a steep learning curve, but I think its important.

And sure, there will be lots and lots of NIMBYs, there already are and they are a nightmare. Not sure what to do about them other than to organize more reasonable people in larger numbers around them. It's possible to do in a democracy one would hope, even though the NIMBYs often seem to be the most well off with the best resources.

[Barrister]

a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?

[Habbaku]

a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?

[The Minsky Moment]

On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

[Berkut]

On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

[mongers]

On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

I don't disagree.

Also us as individuals should modify our behaviour, now.

[grumbler]

On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

An excellent and incisive intellectual response.  When Berkut sees these, he cannot criticize it as he properly does the facile and intellectually lazy one-smiley responses. 

[Malthus]

On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

An excellent and incisive intellectual response.  When Berkut sees these, he cannot criticize it as he properly does the facile and intellectually lazy one-smiley responses. 

I could be wrong, but I read that as 'skepticism that we, as a society, have the collective foresight and strength of will to do this'.

[mongers]

I could be wrong, but I read that as 'skepticism that we, as a society, have the collective foresight and strength of will to do this'.

Yes that's how I read it or he could have selected a clearer smilie like