How can AI help with climate change? A conversation with MIT's Priya Donti

Another approach could be to work for 25 years at full time then 25 doing nothing, instead of 50 years part time.

I've heard this approach called FIRE - financial independence, retire early.

IMO key is the cost of shelter. In all the desirable locations with good jobs the cost of accommodation rises so much that even well earning middle class in uncertain of their future. There is a number of key services and goods everyone needs: somewhere warm to sleep, some food, and healthcare. If people weren't constantly worried that they will lack this the whole nonsensical piramid of useless work would fall apart and everyone would be much happier

> We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way.

I've been hearing a similar statement for decades now, but the global emissions only continue to rise.

In fact, I've been hearing that logic since the late 90s and in that time we have doubled the cumulative emissions up to that point.

We have seen that emissions drop with decrease in economic activity (multiple times). Yes, batteries, renewables, and nuclear would all part a big part in a truly sustainable future... but we have to survive until that future first.

> Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution

We're well past the "solution" stage of this problem. Where in the "harm reduction" phase. Reduced emissions is absolutely superior in this regard to increased emissions... and yet you're arguing that we should be increasing them because a magic solution is just around the corner, like it always has been.

> Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, and Greta doesn't fly, but if you insist, can you share your sources?

Perhaps I am just optimistic but AI doesn't seem necessary, nor does fusion. Fission is more than capable of providing enough power and if we are going to do this via sequestration, we may as well start now and forget net-zero.

I definitely think this is an organisation problem, not a technology problem. Societies are not organising to fix the issue, instead it seems they are hoping the global free market will eventually make it economically beneficial in the short term, to save the climate.

> But that she [Greta Thunberg] is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology

I’ve been hearing this a lot lately, that climate doomerism is somehow damaging to the cause and preventing any meaningful climate action.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what climate doomerism is. I hear people talking as if being realistic about damning nature of the damage we have done, and who is to blame for it all. And instead people believe the message is that we should just give up. If you believe the latter, I dare you to go find any source where Greta Thunberg (or any other supposed climate doomer) has said anything of that nature (hint they haven’t).

But suppose that you are right, and the message of climate doomers is actually that of giving up, now if you compare that to the decades of misdirection and outright lying that the fossil fuel industry has done to actively hinder climate action, and on top of that to actually double down on burning fossil fuels. How much damage, relative to the fossil fuel industry, have people like Greta Thunberg actually caused. Relatively speaking that damage is a drop in the ocean.

I should have specified gasoline consumption since this more closely maps to what we assume EVs will replace.

That has been increasing overtime, barring of course the pandemic, we're on track to pick up from where 2019 left off this year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...

False dichotomy either way -- in reality we will do nothing until the pain becomes unbearable.

Not according to climate scientists. As explained here, mostly believe the warming stop shortly after emissions do:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...

More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.

It’s also possible that our attempts to mitigate the natural effects could cause unknown consequences that backfire on us.