| General > General Technical Chat |
| heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial. |
| << < (58/67) > >> |
| IanB:
One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people? Suppose it is established that humans have been affecting the climate by their activities. The question becomes, is the damage already done? What is the predicted harm in the future as things stand? If actions might be possible to reduce future harm, what is the cost of those actions, and what other harms do the proposed actions create? If the cost and harms of proposed actions are great, are they socially justified? For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes perfectly serviceable petrol vehicles more than about 10 17 years old (8 for diesels) to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped). This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control. Science does not exist in the abstract. Actions have very real impacts on people, and the human impact always needs to be considered. |
| Miti:
--- Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm ---One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people? --- End quote --- Yes they can, they do it and they’re very proud of it. They are called politicians. |
| PlainName:
--- Quote ---For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes all perfectly serviceable internal combustion vehicles more than about 10 years old to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped). This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where there next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control. --- End quote --- That's the political solution. --- Quote ---Science does not exist in the abstract. Actions have very real impacts on people, and the human impact always needs to be considered. --- End quote --- Yes, and the effects of possible solutions should be determined. But they are just recognising effects, not saying that those solutions should or should not be used. It is still the politicians that decide to go one way or another based on many competing things, not the scientists. (edit: removed example that would just detract from the principle) |
| cbutlera:
--- Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 06:33:26 am ---This is very unscientific reasoning. Group think, afraid of losing a job, or just other financial interests can make people do strange things. You have one report with multiple claims it could be that people agree on the individual claims and not on the end conclusion. Right now 1500 scholars from all over the world signed a petition that there is no emergency situation regarding climate and strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. And exactly what kind of consensus we are talking about? Did you read "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited" from Dennis Bray on an earlier version of the IPCC report? Science does not have sweeping statements, but carefully worded exact statements. --- Quote from: cbutlera on August 09, 2023, 01:03:59 pm ---I agree entirely that we should be discussing the contents of that IPCC report as representative of the scientific consensus rather than media reports. So with that in mind I ask again, where in that IPCC report is there any claim that is not supported by scientific research? --- End quote --- --- End quote --- The consensus view that we are talking about is that expressed in the IPCC reports. In answer to your second question, no. The IPCC reports include input from a large number of expert reviewers. Anyone who is suitably qualified can apply to be an expert reviewer, even if they are sceptics, even if they are well known sceptics. If any of those reviewers had spotted an error and had credible evidence to support them, then the error would have been corrected. If any of those 1500 scholars had anything to contribute to the IPCC reports that they could back up with evidence, then I assume that they would have applied to be expert reviewers. The opportunity was there. If they didn't apply, then I think that speaks for itself. In a petition you can just state that you disagree, without the nuisance of actually having to provide any credible evidence to support that view. |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm ---One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people? Suppose it is established that humans have been affecting the climate by their activities. The question becomes, is the damage already done? --- End quote --- Some damage has been done (e.g. dead corals due to acidification of the ocean, loss of some biodiversity and species) but it's generally accepted that the damage at this point is mostly reversible. The majority of climate change damage due to high CO2 can be reversed in the long term, which is one reason the IPCC goes on about "1.5C plus overshoot". They model a ~2C situation lasting less than 5 years then cooling to 1.5C over next 10-15 years as being an achievable target, more achievable than 1.5C on its own. This is expected to lead to minimal long term damage (e.g. land loss due to flooding) though there will still be negative impacts. --- Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm ---What is the predicted harm in the future as things stand? If actions might be possible to reduce future harm, what is the cost of those actions, and what other harms do the proposed actions create? If the cost and harms of proposed actions are great, are they socially justified? --- End quote --- A better question is what is the impact of doing nothing? Adapting to climate change and reducing carbon emissions is possible, even if we cannot hit net zero by 2050, if we can substantially reduce carbon emissions then it will almost certainly have a benefit. This can be done, by investing more into renewables and less into fossil fuels, better insulation in homes, carbon taxation for heavy industry, forcing aviation to use synfuels, and so on. The cost of no action is significant: large crop failures, extreme weather, flooding, positive feedback loops (some of which may not be reversible.) --- Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm ---For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes all perfectly serviceable internal combustion vehicles more than about 10 years old to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped). --- End quote --- No, every petrol vehicle made after 2004 can be used in the expanded ULEZ zone. Only diesels made before 2015 may not comply. These vehicles can be adapted, by adding an SCR system, and this is done for some heavier vehicles but the majority of these polluting diesels will just leave London and go elsewhere in the country. They aren't being scrapped, they're just not being used in London any more. ULEZ is a good idea: London has dense traffic levels, with roads built for much smaller levels of traffic passing directly outside people's homes. It is estimated that the air pollution in London kills upwards of 7,000 per year directly, and roughly 7% of all childhood asthma events are directly triggered by high air pollution. There are notably higher rates of childhood asthma in general in London and other big cities (in other words, you are more likely to develop it as a child if you live in London). --- Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm ---This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control. --- End quote --- Agreed, it is a problem to solve so that the adaptation to climate change and air pollution doesn't impact the poorest. It is a difficult problem to solve for sure. However I'd argue that the health harms of allowing these vehicles to operate outweighs being able to own a polluting vehicle, and cheap second-hand alternatives are available, as well as a scrappage scheme that might help a bit, but it's going to need to increase if a ULEZ-like scheme applies to the rest of the country eventually (it's only a matter of time in my opinion). |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |