Biden says global warming topping 1.5 degrees in the next 10 to 20 years is scarier than nuclear war

www.cnbc.com

What Biden has done is to cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law, pass the Inflation Reduction Act, enact a regulation to force vehicle electrification, and similarly force fossil fuels out of most power plants.

What Biden has not done: stop issuing drilling permits or impose export restrictions on fossil fuels. The former has some serious limits because of how the courts treat the right to drill as a property right once you hold a drilling lease, and the latter is simply untested.

143 comments

Biden literally just cancelled oil and gas leases less than a week ago. I agree he hasn't done enough, but there is some validity to the old statement that perfection is often the enemy of good.
- The graph from OPs link shows a significant drop off under Obama, a steep rise under trump, and then another drop off under Biden. Kind of follows the Dem-Rep seesaw I've been experience for decades. It's depressing that the Dems can't do more, but the reality is they are also funded by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry, Dems can barely hold onto majorities as it is, and voters vote for these morally weak candidates over and over. I'm really at a fuck-this-place, and fuck-all-these-people stage. The only thing I really regret is bringing a kid into this world. Just very selfish and narcissistic on my behalf.
  
  Why wait decades to fix something instead of fixing stuff now?
  The United States is not a Command Economy and The President is not a Dictator. The US via private enterprise is dumping ever larger sums into renewable energy production and is definitely making progress. It's not happening fast enough but it IS happening.
  
  It’s politically unpopular to do what need to be done. Moderate policies are popular policies. And moderate policies will move left the more people vote and the more old gens die.
  
  Trump facilitated those particular leases.
  
  I think people dislike moderates because they can be more realistic. Cars are one of the biggest contributors to GHG in the US. Most people literally need to drive cars due to how our transportation infrastructure is built. It will upwards of a decade to undo because it will require a lot of large construction projects. Those take time.
  Change requires support of the electorate or the current officials will get replaced. This is why people like Koch and Murdoch invest so heavily in propaganda.
  Militarily, the only real threat to the US by a foreign invasion is nukes. Our naval and air power is on a whole other level. China has way too much control of manufacturing, so going after the other problem child results in a global economic catastrophe.
  The BEST thing anyone can do is winning hearts and minds of US citizens to get them on board with what needs to be done. More moderate action is an easier sell. Once hedonic adaptation kicks in and people adjust to the new normal, we can move further. We are really close to being there. Look at my post history and read the nature article.
- Our left wing party is still opening new coal and gas mines so be thankful for whatever progress you get I say.
- perfection is often the enemy of good.
  I whole heartedly agree. Things don't change overnight. We can't rebuild hundreds of cities to eliminate car dependency by next Wednesday.
  What we can change rapidly is behavior. It isn't hard to convince someone to eat less beef when alternatives are cheaper. It isn't hard to convince people that buying one nice 30 dollar shirt that looks better, feels better, and lasts for many years is cheaper than 2 20 dollar shirts that fade and unravel at the seems in a year.
  We can't expect everyone to junk their canyoneros tomorrow. We can convince them to harass city officials into put bollards up on the bike lanes because more bikes is less traffic that they have to sit in.
  
  I'm not sure who would downvote your comment. All sensible approaches to improving the state of things.
- Seriously he couldn't pass the Build Back Better plan but then the Inflation Reduction Act provides a potentially unlimited amount of incentives/subsidies for green energy.
  Painting him as "just a moderate" on this issue is some centrist level bullshit, OP. He's clearly giving oil, gas, and military convenient wins so they don't ruin the world before the next US election. Yes, the oil barons have more political power than a sifnificant amount of voters.
- Even by your linked article's admission, that was kind of inconsequential:
  The 2017 GOP tax bill opened a small part of the pristine wildlife refuge for drilling, a measure championed by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican. But it was never developed or drilled – or came close to doing so. Haaland suspended the leases in June 2021, and some major oil companies, including Chevron, canceled their leases in the area the following year.
  However, the 2017 tax law mandates leasing in ANWR, meaning the Biden administration will have to launch a new leasing process and hold another lease sale by the end of 2024, albeit likely with tighter environmental provisions.
  So the companies had the permits for 4 years and never did anything with them, to the point where Chevron cancelled their own leases. And the leases will be auctioned off again next year.
  Meanwhile the Biden administration is granting applications for permits to drill on public and trial lands at a pace faster than the Trump administration at the same point. From the start of their administrations through March 27, Biden approved 7,118 permits and Trump 7,051, The Washington Post reported.
  About the permit approvals, the Bureau of Land Management has said the bureau has taken a "balanced approach to energy development and management of our nation’s public lands."
  So yeah, while I think Biden is the most progressive president since FDR, his record on oil drilling isn't so great.
  Edit: fix the order of some quotes.
- I don't think that's ever been in serious doubt; the same simulation mechanisms used to produce climate modeling were used to figure out that nuclear winter is an issue in the first place. It's just that most people would prefer to address global warming without mass murder.
  
  So just nuke Antarctica. No one dies except some penguins, global warming ended. And they said it was hard /s
- There is, of course, the possibility of geoengineering with sulfur dioxide. Sort of a nuclear winter without the nuclear. It's the same mechanism by which nuclear would and volcanoes do cause climate cooling. Not very safe but it may be in our emergency bag of tricks.
  
  Wasn't there a proposal to do something similar by using ships to blast saltwater into the air? All the cloud coverage and reflected sunlight, none of the acid rain.
  
  What is safe? Seems like everything we do is toxic and dangerous
- Nuclear winter is about as likely as a solution to global warming though.
We just have to learn the hard way don’t we?
- As an elementary school teacher, “the hard way” is the overwhelming choice of kids. I don’t think it changes that much when they grow into adults.
- Or we can work to stop things that are existential crises.
The sun is a nuclear furnace. Climate change IS nuclear war!
(we should nuke the sun)
- Gotta nuke something
- If it's good enough for Superman, it's good enough for me.
- we should nuke the sun
  ok, how
  
  By tying nukes to rockets and sending them to the sun, duh!
  If we go by night, we will even be able to see the explosion from Earth!
  
  Use a bigger star.
Of course. Climate change is happening, and will keep getting worse until all the biggest countries agree to do and actually go through with doing something substantial about it (or to fully isolate the economies of those that refuse). Nuclear war is just an idea.
- It's doubtful curbing CO2 output will put a stop to it now. We're already seeing the beginnings of feedback loops kicking in, and with them runaway climate collapse.
  
  We've got pretty clear evidence that getting emissions to zero is enough to stop the increase in average surface temperature.
  
  Right, we need net zero emissions, no further destruction of nature, and then we can start doing something to undo what we've already done.
- We need most of the West and the upper classes of China to reduce their consumption of meat and animal products substantially.
I've got some bad news... We're already there.
- Not exactly. Most references to 1.5C are about the long term average hitting that level, not an individual year.
  
  Given the trend, it's a pretty strong indicator we're there. What is long-term in the context of a change over 10-20 years, that's reaching a breakaway point?
  You understand that when things are steadily moving in one direction, we'd need to overshoot the difference between the start of the reference period and the 1.5 degree figure by 100%(incorrectly assuming linear change - the reality is more exponential - far worse by the time it shows up)
  For example - for a 1.5C change over 6 years, starting at 0C:
  Year 0 - real temp 0, average 0
  Year 3 - real temp 1.5, average 0.75
  Year 6 - real temp 3, average 1.5
Then finally start making the companies that make a win out of it pay more taxes!! Like, CO² taxes, import/export taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue
- That's something that requires an act of Congress rather than Biden.. And with the current House makeup, extremely unlikely.
  
  Ok, i'm not american, so thanks. Still, they are supposed to be grownups, but are self-centered like children. They should go to kindergarten again, to learn compromise.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fable
The next 10 or 20 years? I just read an article that hit it already and will likely do it consistently over the next several years. The next 10-20 will likely few closer to a 3.6°F (2°C) rise.
- Year-to-year surface temperatures vary significantly. Look at a graph like this:
  and it's clear that we could easily have a string of years below this year's temperature
  
  We could but the current El Niño is supposed to be pretty significant. We also have significantly less sulfur oxide being spewed by international shipping which has a large cooling effect on the oceans. It is good that we cut down on that pollution and there are things we can replace it with that will have similar effects and are less damaging but there is currently nothing planned that would essentially replace that coming effect.
  While you are correct that there is a good amount of variability in the temperature, I think it is just as likely that it will be variability the other way.
- I think I know the one you're talking about, and the headline is somewhat misleading. This comes with the disclaimer that I don't want to downplay the severity of any of this, but it's important to have the right context.
  What's happened is that we've had two months in a row with extreme temperatures. Those alone peak above +1.5C. It had been this high before, back in 2016. However, we're not going to have an average of +1.5C of extra warming this year, or in the next few years.
  It's still bad, just not that bad.
Climate change is scary, but scarier than nuclear war? I dunno, man.
- Relaaaax. We're not going to die. Most likely anyways. Our children tho... hoo boy they might have a bit of a problem on their hands
  
  We're fucked already. The question now is about how much we will be fucked and if we can survive this. See what happened in Hawaï. It happened in Europe too. Cyclones will be a lot more common too. Heat waves are already hitting several times per year in what were temperate places. Agriculture is already suffering, and with it will come famine.
  It's important to act now, because things will only get worse and it's bad enough already.
- IMHO this mostly tells us that Biden is talking about climate policy with the people around him. That's enough to be a big deal.
  
  Yeah, when all the Republicans in the last debate said it wasn't real, or whatever words were used, this is a clear difference on what's likely the most important issue for most voters.
- Nuclear war is quick.
  Climate change is slow.
  Gimme the quick flash over the boiling frog deal Everytime.
  
  If you're lucky enough to be one of the minimal handful who actually die in the quick flash. More likely you'll be one of the multitudes poisoned by radioactive fallout or starved by nuclear winter.
  It's not better.
- The scariness multiplied by the probability of it happening maybe...
- IDK, climate-fueled illnesses — tied to hotter temperatures, and swifter passage of pathogens and toxins. Continuing pandemics would be no treat.
- Nuclear war is obviously terrible. But it's still somewhat localised between the warring nations.
  Climate change is everywhere and will eventually be just as devastating and then quickly much worse if not resolved
- It definitely is. It is far, far more cataclysmic than a nuclear war. You'll discover that soon unfortunately.
- I like how no one here mentioned the obvious fact that climate change disasters will only make world powers more willing to start a nuclear war. Just look at North Korea, what will happen when they have a huge famine or flood or fire or whatever and even the Kims can't fill their bellies, what then?
- In that it is definitely happening and will be equally destructive if steps aren't taken to prevent it, albeit over a longer timeframe.
Didn’t we just hit 1.5C today?
- We're still some years from hitting an ongoing sustained average of 1.5°C above what it was in the late 1800s. That's what people mostly talking about when they say 1.5°C
  
  This year will be above 1.5°C. Which means we did reach that.
  What you're talking about is the average of yearly average temperatures. But it's not what we're looking at. We've never seen earth average temperature above +1.5. And averages don't move much. I don't care if next year will "only" be +1.49...
Putin might save us all when he orders some confused kid to turn those keys.
- May I remind you global thermonuclear war is bad for the environment?
  
  The environment around Chernobyl is doing great without people.
  
  It's not bad for the inviroment it's bad for people. The climate is coming back over time.
- He won't order it. He knows that the most likely result is that he just nukes Russia, and then gets a retaliatory strike when the world realizes he just tried to nuke someone.
Ive seen fuck all investment in solar where I'm at. Id really like to contribute labor to it, but there's nothing.
- A lot has been happening in the southwest US, including Texas.
- Here in the rural Midwest there is a huge investment in wind turbines. They are everywhere you look. I think what renewable is popular depends on your region.
  
  There are specific areas where nothing is happening. For example, Alberta has a moratorium on renewables in order to benefit the local fossil fuels industry.
  
  Iowa had the most wind turbines in the US like...before Obama was even president I believe. But I wouldnt know what's been invested there federally since Biden took over, because I cant find any info on where those investments are going.
- Where I'm at, we're actually getting a decent amount of solar, but unfortunately the power district is building the solar fields over some remnant tallgrass prairie, probably since it's cheaper than buying agricultural or residential land. This sucks since we've destroyed 98% of all the tallgrass prairie in the US, which makes it one of the most endangered biomes in the world, which is extra sucky since tallgrass prairie is one the most effective biomes at sequestering carbon, much more than even forests/woodlands.
Unfortunately, Russia (and SA) complicate the matter. Russia earns based on the price of oil and if the US stops producing it that price goes up along with it. The world still will buy Oil and Europe especially relies on US Oil at the moment as they ween themselves off Russia’s. Oil is the main economic driver of Russia, and you can’t combat that without producing MORE. SA’s also in the mix as they have no real other (major) economic sectors to support their country and they know Oil is going away. All of this plus Climate change leave no good options on the board to choose from at this moment except to promote and support green infrastructure…which Biden has done. It all sucks.
- Nobody is suggesting that the US suddenly and instantly stop extracting, but that it be phased out in conjunction with getting rid of the need for oil in the first place.
  The Saudi royal family has an alternative at this point, which is to live off their sovereign wealth fund, which owns stocks and bonds outside the country. They are also sitting on several million barrels/day in reserve extraction capacity, and could pretty easily crash oil prices if they felt like it.
And what he is doing to prevent it? Did the US decided to FINALLY SIGN THE FUCKING KYOTO PROTOCOL?
- As I originally posted:
  What Biden has done is to cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law, pass the Inflation Reduction Act, enact a regulation to force vehicle electrification, and similarly force fossil fuels out of most power plants.
  What Biden has not done: stop issuing drilling permits or impose export restrictions on fossil fuels. The former has some serious limits because of how the courts treat the right to drill as a property right once you hold a drilling lease, and the latter is simply untested.
- Read the post before commenting, you doughnut
  
  he is doing too little too late.
Let's burn some more fossil fuels!! Whoo hoo,!! I doubt developing countries will stop it as their reasoning is absolutely correct. Developed countries already polluted the environment during the industrial stage and now they are in better position so they shouldn't be the one lecturing about climate change. Only way to overcome this is by supporting each other financially but as we know human beings are greedy AF so let it burrrrnnnnnn!!
- The technological landscape that developing countries have today is very different from what it was a century ago. Wind and solar power are cheap in a way that they weren't then, so there's the possibility of a green industrialization, where they don't have to go down the road the US and Europe and China did.
  
  Yeah naa...there's a reason coal is being used and i'll let you do your research before spilling BS.
- I see it as an indication that he's thinking about climate policy and not a serious risk assessment