The headline seems bleedin' obvious really. But the Graun is excited by it: Fabian Dablander, the lead author, said the belief that technology will largely solve climate change and its consequences, labelled “techno-optimism”, can lead to an over reliance on unproven solutions at the expense of the far-reaching socioeconomic transformations needed to address the climate and nature crisis. I blame Timmy for pointing this piece out.Anyway, two things on top of Timmy's point: firstly, notice how the tech-fork gets a label, techno-optimism, which I think is meant to make you think such people are naive and simplistic in their beliefs, and the headline dig at "faith"; whereas the socio-trans fork doesn't get a label, because that's just common sense, and slips in the word "needed" because that is simply obvs to all right-thinking people.
Secondly and more importantly, notice that the tech-fork ideas are "unproven" whereas the unproven, unknown and unspecified socio-trans ideas are not so labelled. This is bizarre.
In tech terms, we have a number of things - mostly solar panels, maybe more wind, could be nooks if only the idiots would allow them to be built - that offer a fairly clear path to solving GW. Together with some rather more speculative ideas - iron fertilization, solar geoengineering - that are probably only emergency measures1.
In socio terms, we have no real ideas what we would be aiming for, and no idea how to do it, and little to no idea of how to change society2, beyond vague useless hand-waving images of peasants singing around maypoles.
And Kevin Anderson can fuck right off.
Notes
1. And which are "unproven solutions" only because the clowns won't allow them to be researched or tested.
2. Somewhere, not long ago, I read an article - possibly at ACX - pointing out that changing society is really hard and that we end up solving lots of problems with tech; but I can't find it right now. I should also note Popper's cautions regarding revolutionary change and his arguements for piecemeal social engineering.
3. My picture is a detail from - I think - a crucifixion scene; and is certainly in the OldMasters museum, Brussels. Do tell me exactly which painting, if you know; like a fool I forgot to note it.
There are social measures which, if taken together with sensible tech efforts (most of which you mention above), could have an impact. Increasing urban densities is probably top of the list, but also getting India, other S. Asian countries and much of Africa off of kerosene and onto other fuels (any other fuels would be an improvement), building an electricity grid where none exists or has fallen into disrepair... Somewhere at some point I researched and wrote how we could eliminate or mitigate about half of our emissions with nothing new, nothing really innovative, just the hard slog of social change. I wonder where that is? Anyhow, if you haven't read Pielke Jr.'s latest, I recommend it highly. Hell, I recommend his entire substack output.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are such things that we can do; though arguably getting Africa off kerosene is more techno than social. But exactly what label you give it doesn't matter, those kinds of changes are not the "far-reaching socioeconomic transformations" that our authors are salivating for.
DeletePielke: the "hunting" or the "behind the scenes"?
I enjoy most of his commentary but I was referring to the hunting one. His dad is one of the nicest guys I encountered during the Climate Wars.
ReplyDeleteSr was, I agree, nice; but kinda wrong too. I put a higher value on correctness.
DeleteAs to the hunting... I'm afraid I didn't get past the defence of Curry. Who has been gone for rather a long time (e.g. https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/curry-jumps-the-shark/; or https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/wyatt-and-curry-part-ii-not-waving-but-drowning/).
Not sure I want to re-litigate the hit job on Curry--let's just agree to disagree, with a nod to Mike Tobis.
ReplyDelete