Comment by ben_w
15 hours ago
I take your general point, but:
> Except that it doesn't work if you don't drive your car alone (if you assume the plane is full of passengers, why not assuming that the car is, as well?)
These can be measured for averages. Lots of cars with one person in them, seldom cars fully packed; lots of planes fully packed, seldom (but it does happen) that the plane is almost empty.
> we have largely missed the goal of keeping global warming to 1.5C (thinking that we could reach it is absurd at this point).
Probably, yes; last year passed the threshold — it would be a pleasant *surprise* if that turned out to have been a fluke 14* years early.
* 14 because it would take 14 years for the exponential — seen for the last 30 years — for PV to replace all forms of power consumption; not just electricity, everything. But even then we'd also need to make rapid simultaneous progress with non-energy CO2 sources like cattle and concrete.
> around the equator will become unlivable for human beings (similar to being on Mars: you need equipment just to survive outside)
In so far as your bracket, sure; but there's a huge gap in what equipment you would need.
The comparison I often make is that Mars combines the moisture of the Sahara, the warmth of the Antarctic, the air pressure of the peak of Mount Everest, and the soil quality of a superfund cleanup site, before then revealing that it's actually worse on all counts.
> These can be measured for averages. Lots of cars with one person in them
Sure, but the point should be that we should strive to share cars, not that it's okay to take the plane! Especially given the second argument which is that you don't drive 1000km every time you take your car. The footprint per km is not enough: when you take the plane you typically go much further!
> Probably, yes; last year passed the threshold
That, plus the IPCC scenario that keeps us under 1.5C says that in a few decades, not only we won't be extracting any carbon anymore, but we will be pumping carbon underground faster than we are extracting it now! And that's with the IPCC models which tend to be optimistic (we measure that every year)!
> 14 because it would take 14 years for the exponential — seen for the last 30 years — for PV to replace all forms of power consumption
And you would have to take into account that PV today entirely relies on oil. We are going towards a world with less and less oil, and we don't know how it will impact our capacity of production for PVs. But probably it won't help.
> In so far as your bracket, sure; but there's a huge gap in what equipment you would need.
Sure. It was a quick way to say that the combination of humidity and temperature will be such that sweating won't help humans regulate their temperature. And when we can't regulate our temperature, we die. By any account, this means that billions of people will have to relocate, which means global wars (with entire countries moving with their entire armies).
Now of course that would be infinitely better than trying to live on Mars, which is why it is preposterous to even consider Mars.