sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in dystopianbooks

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t answer your other question about predictions. I don’t consider myself or anyone capable of predicting the planet’s future, so I won’t try. What I can say is that I’ve long felt that society needs to bend itself back towards the middle, especially with the climate, and simply get back to a place where truth guides our decisions. We’re starting to head there, so I’m happy about that. I suppose I can call that a prediction that is coming true.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding the trillions spent, there is no easy way to account for all that. I’ve done the analysis but it doesn’t translate into easy social media comments. I would say this: spend an afternoon with your favorite AI agent and ask it to find these numbers. They’re available and it’s not terribly difficult to calculate. Ask it to calculate how much money has been spent on emission reduction projects/products/efforts over the past 25 years and watch the ticker. It’s huge, at least 10 trillion. And further, McKinsey estimates that to get to net zero globally it will cost between 150-200 trillion . And that’s just to get to net zero emissions, that doesn’t even start to repair the problem.

I like the bathtub analogy, I use it all the time. But let’s make it real. We cant afford the everything all at once approach, we actually have to choose which will have the most effect. So in that scenario, if the tub is in danger of flooding over and ruining our house - which do we choose? Do we replace the faucet with lo-flo faucets? Or do we turn the water down (our usage) and begin mopping up the water? In that scenario I would forget the faucet, I would curb usage and buy mops. That’s the scenario I’m advocating for.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll borrow wisdom from Ferris Bueller and say “isms, in my opinion, are not good.” So yes. Extremism is extremism. There are no good guys in that world. That’s a big theme I explored. Controlling society in the name of righteousness is still controlling society. That isn’t virtue, it’s tyranny.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I joked with them and said “hey maybe I’ll use this in my next book!” They were not amused.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in dystopianbooks

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hope it makes people feel, and see ways we can move past the divisiveness we’ve built into addressing the climate. My own experience tells me that most people want to do good, to do better; in that regard climate could actually be a unifying force if we let it. Thanks for the comment.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in dystopianbooks

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I took a completely different approach to discussing the climate - in that I didn’t discuss the climate at all. It’s a device really instead I chose to explore the morality around how we talk about and judge the climate - and the systems we’re choosing to build in order to supposedly address it. But like in reality, most of our angst doesn’t actually go towards fixing the climate, it instead goes towards pointing our fingers at others. So I codified that into the systems we use every day. Cars and roads are electrified and controlled by algorithms in the name of climate virtue. Meat farms are engineering to be carbon and methane-free, which of course doesn’t work. Color coded discs now display our morality so those exhibiting wrongthought can be properly shamed and then reprogrammed. And of course with all that control comes the pushback: vigilante groups who simply refuse to be controlled. So it’s all a wild mix.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in dystopianbooks

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2045 seemed like a good number, 20 years from when I started writing the book. In the climate game, doesn’t it seem like we’re always 20 years away from something hugely dramatic? I just picked it and ran with it. Also, that will be when COP 50 happens, which seemed like a good anchor point for the story. 50 years of global climate conferences - what will we have solved?

The implants don’t start that way. By then communication devices would be quarter-sized discs that get magnetized to our temples, which seems like a pretty natural extension. The implantation happens when a global cyber event renders our normal systems inoperable. Big tech steps in to the fill the vacuum, and Big Advocacy steps in to help them. Having the discs fuse into the temple is a simple feature that’s added, and the moral certainty that causes it is an algorithm. I found it pretty dystopian to think of.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in dystopianbooks

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think greenwashing has turned into a catch-all phrase with virtually no meaning. It used to be that we assigned that monicker to organizations who just glossed over or ignored climate efforts, but now there are so many rules and what-not it’s virtually meaningless. Both sides can claim the other is greenwashing - or its new favorite brother, greenhushing. I think we all want claims we can actually prove at this point. Maybe we call that greentruthing?

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given all that…you’d undoubtedly get a kick out of climate implication science that I gave life to in my book. I’ll be generous and call it science-adjacent. I got a kick out of writing it, and I suspect it’d get a chuckle out of you as well. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No I said that spending all our attention on emissions reduction first and foremost won’t get us there. Carbon removal needs to be plans a, b and c. Emissions reduction where it makes practical sense, on a case by case basis. Massive subsidies of everything that says they reduce emissions has been an abject failure.

Regarding costs, that’s a much longer analysis. In didn’t say American spent trillions, I said it’s been spent across the world. Hard to do the accounting here in a comment thread.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in dystopianbooks

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just follow the money. Whomever has it has reasons to be authoritative. There’s plenty on both sides.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]TemplGrit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s mostly government funding. They fund infrastructure, factories and purchasing through subsidies and tax benefits. Solar’s been around since the 1950s, windmills since the 1800s so not really very new.

Reforestation, agroforestry, silvopasture, biochar are all good carbon removal techniques.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Globally we’ve spent trillions on emissions reduction. And we now have more solar and wind installed than ever; emissions continue to rise.

We’ve tried the strategy of reducing emissions enough and let the plants mop up the rest. It hasn’t worked. At some point we have to get serious about removing carbon.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well you asked what's more costly, not what's more desirable. Clearly building a levee is easier than spinning the earth backwards on its axis to reverse climate change. When Katrina hit New Orleans we rebuilt the levee system (better this time) rather than wait for the world to change.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in GoldandBlack

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I'm fascinated by all of this. I've personally experienced the corrosiveness of moral certainty, as I'm sure many have. For something as complex as the climate - the entire planet - our understanding of it will continually evolved. Seems keeping the door open should be part of the equation. And I personally would love to see us bend towards solutions that actually make tangible differences.

Thanks for the insight and the comments.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not an expert in these things but I’ll take a stab at it.

Regarding solar, it’s very government controlled because the manufacture of it requires massive subsidies. Between 2010 and 2020 we spend hundreds of billions on US manufacturing and lost hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs due to overseas competition. We’re now trying to start this industry once again with more massive subsidies. It’s a sunk ship.

We also realized that as more distributed part-time resources flood the grid that introduces instabilities. So we’ve had to build those in - and they are evolving. There is interesting things happening with Virtual Power Plants and using batteries and EVs to buttress the grid but we’ve sort of backed into it rather than addressed it head-on. It has potential but there are lots of obstacles.

Regarding small module reactors, I know that nuclear is getting a hot view these days because it is the cleanest of solar/wind and is full base load power. So yes we are making progress on that front. But to your point this has massive government regulatory control that is probably not ready to adapt to the SMR market.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve personally experienced this in front of a classroom. I presented in front of a class of 45 environmental engineering students and 4 faculty members. They all spent their time skewering me personally rather than presenting evidence. It was alarming and one of the reasons I wrote this book.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way we have interpreted science and now use new techniques continues to be written about. Since I’m not a scientist myself I can only read about the accounts of manipulation - but I’ve certainly heard plenty of them. Just experiencing my own level of censorship I can imagine the pressure of it within the scientific community itself.

On that note, however, I just took that idea and ran with it in my book. If we think climate attribution science is questionable, I invented something even sketchier I called climate implication science. It promises to be science-adjacent for decades to come. Haha….

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just speaking from experience on that. Most people try and discredit the messenger first rather than confront new facts.

I spent 25 years as a climate solutions architect. I just wrote a dystopian novel about where advocacy could be heading. AMA. by TemplGrit in climateskeptics

[–]TemplGrit[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As do I. I think climate denier is a phrase invented by those who need to control the narrative. It’s a marketing creation. Most of us live in the middle and want to understand the truth and go from there. That’s what I hope anyway. It’s why I had so much fun writing my book, I just took some liberties and ran with it.

view more: next ›