
‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists - 1qazxsw23edc
https://voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/
======
clay_the_ripper
I’m sorry - I don’t buy this article at all.

I am not a climate denier, just a reasonable person with a brain. Obviously
global warming/global climate change is real. Obviously, green house gas
emissions by humans are the main culprit.

But I do not for one second believe that civilization will collapse, at least
not in say the next couple of hundred years.

Ecosystems are already toast -GBR will mostly die in the next 50 years.
Rainforests and biodiversity, deforestation etc are history. Already dead. But
will human beings and our civilization “collapse”? No way.

These “climate refugees” everyone talks about “overwhelming” us actually
stinks of xenophobia. And in what way is a climate refugee different from a
regular refugee? The developing world is already a catastrophe, yet I wouldn’t
say refugees are overwhelming us.

Bacially my view is this: yeah it’s bad but saying that 6 billion people will
die which is what this article suggests is alarmist nonsense.

~~~
SamPatt
>Rainforests and biodiversity, deforestation etc are history. Already dead.

No they aren't dead. The world has literally gotten greener in recent decades.

Look up "dematerialization." Because of increased technology and wealth, we're
actually starting to use fewer raw resources (both per capita and in absolute
terms) and therefore our negative impact on the environment is decreasing now.

You don't often hear of this but the data is pretty clear. "More From Less" by
Andrew McAfee has the data.

~~~
esarbe
McAfee's book primarily cites US numbers, so this represents a kind of cherry-
picking. There's a whole lot of earth that's not yet caught up to be able to
use less resources.

But no matter if we talk about the US only or about Earth as a whole,
biodiversity is way down and the earth is much, much less greener then it was,
say, fifty years ago. Much of the 'greening' that has happened are artificial
woods (see; China's failing reforestation projects) that suffer from lack of
biodiversity, falling prey all kinds of "pests". Like one single fungus
killing wast swaths of wood within months.

Our environmental impact is not decreasing. It's still increasing and it will
for a long time (until it all comes tumbling down like the house of cards it
is).

------
korantu
> “senior U.N. environmental official” claims that if global warming isn’t
> reversed by 2030, then rising sea levels could wipe “entire nations . . .
> off the face of the Earth.” > Crop failures coupled with coastal flooding,
> he said, could provoke “an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ ” whose movements could
> wreak political chaos the world over. Unabated, the ice caps will melt away,
> the rainforests will burn, and the world will warm to unbearable
> temperatures. > Governments “have a ten-year window of opportunity to solve
> the greenhouse effects before it goes beyond human control,” said the U.N.
> official. [0]

the above was published by U.N. official in 1989, with point of no return
being year 2000, not 2030. People knew it for more than 20 years already.

It is important to keep in mind that alarmism can actually be harmful, where
instead of doing anything people just have their burger whole try can, as
there is no point doing anything anymore. [1]

[0]
[https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0](https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-
everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#3f848ba412d6)

~~~
magicnubs
> instead of doing anything people just have their burger whole try can

I assume this is just a typo, but I can't for the life of me figure out what
the original was

~~~
makerofspoons
I read it as "instead of doing anything people will just have their burger
while they can"

------
mrosett
Neo-malthusian arguments have been recycled by the same group of intellectuals
for the last 50 years or so. You'd be hard pressed to point to a single
prediction they've made that turned out to be correct. If there's a single
fatal flaw, it's that they discount how much people will change their behavior
in response to a change in circumstances. Unchecked global warming may spell
doom for civilization as it currently exists... but adaptations will be made.
Food will be grown in places that are currently too cold for it. Sea walls
will be built. Air conditioners will be purchased.

If "top climate scientists" want to argue that preventing climate change is
better than adapting to it, then that's something I'd engage with. But this?
Absolute drivel.

------
rayiner
Is this "top climate scientists" or the "scientific consensus?"

------
LatteLazy
And there is literally nothing any of us can do about it.

~~~
lcam84
We can try degrowth.

We need to find a way to live well and decrease the GDP. The article talks
about the limits of growth for, those who don't know what it is you can watch
this video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz9wjJjmkmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz9wjJjmkmc)

~~~
LatteLazy
No, we can't try that I'm afraid.

People won't accept that. People have chosen to doom the planet. The problem
here isn't technology or economics. It's people and politics. People don't
want to survive, they want cheeseburgers and air-conditioning.

~~~
lcam84
Maybe you are right, but we need to try something and for me this is what make
sense. For instance did you notice the effect of covid in the environment? We
need to challenge assumptions. The assumption of growth is one of them. We
need to have intrinsical objectives. The goal should not be to save the planet
but to act in the best possible way to make it happen.

~~~
LatteLazy
How do you and me try degrowing the world economy? We can't.

>The goal should not be to save the planet but to act in the best possible way
to make it happen.

Sorry, but this sort of thinking is exactly what has gotten us nowhere for the
last 50+ years.

~~~
lcam84
We could channel the consuption taxes to a UBI. This would make local
economies more competitive compared the global economy. For example, taxes on
fossil fuels would make products made from far away more expensive than local
products. With time UBI would not be needed as local economies tooked the
global economy role.

There are many attitudes towards climate change. We can be too optimistic and
tell ourselves that we do not need to worry because we will have a solution in
the future. We can be very pessimistic and think that it is no longer worth
it, we all gonna die. I want to have a middle position, I know it is a very
big challenge and there are great possibilities, that it will not be possible
to reverse what lies ahead, but we will try nevertheless. The objective is not
what will happen to the planet, the objective is to define what is our role in
all of this.

------
wcerfgba
Fellow techies interested in helping solve the climate crisis may be
interested in [https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/) :)

~~~
lcam84
I am a tech guy, but I am not very optimistic about finding a technological
solution for this. The problem is energy, how much energy do we need to change
to move to a greener infrastructure? There is also the paradox of jevrons [1].
I need to slow down the economy and, at the same time, ensure that everyone
lives a decent life. This would be real progress. [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
There is a whole lot that we can do. A plant caused the last ice age[1]. If we
could genetically engineer that plant to grow on the ocean, it would sequester
an incredible amount of CO2.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event)

~~~
klipt
Most of the discussion of combatting climate change focuses on reducing
atmospheric CO2, but there's an entire second category of approaches: Solar
Radiation Management, some of which could be much faster and cheaper than
reducing CO2.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management)

While reducing CO2 emissions via investment in renewables is still an
important long term goal, if we're already heading towards a potentially
catastrophic situation, it seems we should be investigating other forms of
climate engineering more seriously?

~~~
lcam84
I find some challenges in geo engineering: \- Problem shifting. Gaia is a very
complex system, and geoengineering solutions can have unexpected effects \- We
don't just have the problem of climate change to solve. Loss of biodiversity,
acidification of the oceans, soil loss have to be taken into account. \- We
have the jevons paradox. By finding a technical solution to the problem we can
think that it is justifiable to continue polluting.

If we could slow down human activity, nature would begin to regenerate. I
think it is possible to slow down our development without any major problems
for humanity, after all we have never lived in a period of such prosperity. It
would be a matter of maintaining our level of wealth (or even lowering it a
little) instead of aspiring to more.

Solutions created by us are usually fragile compared to natural systems that
are anti-fragile.

------
engineer_22
Voice of action is a Marxist propoganda website

~~~
ManuelKiessling
I think it is good style to combine especially strong opinions with especially
strong supporting facts, proofs, evidence, or arguments.

~~~
jariel
There are no facts in the article to support any of their many sociological
positions.

For example, that inequality of asset ownership leads to social decay. That
there is even actually social decay or real instability in America.

One thing missed by in the treatise and a lot of comments, is that
'consumption' is somehow tantamount to 'resource utilisation'. Obviously,
there is a correlation. But a considerable amount of what we 'consume' does
not entail necessarily excessive resource consumption. Plastics, electronics
doesn't eat up a lot of 'resources', though some parts perhaps more than
others i.e. 'alkaline batteries'. Huge swaths of our consumption aren't even
related to resources: entertainment, video games, software, social networks
etc..

If they are really smart, they would take some time to decouple the 'resource
intensive' aspects of consumption, with those that are not, and help industry
to optimise along those lines.

~~~
perl4ever
>a considerable amount of what we 'consume' does not entail necessarily
excessive resource consumption

If you pay for some abstract service, the money goes to pay human beings who
ultimately either consume or save, don't they? You pay for something that
doesn't involve using a lot of resources in itself, but the money goes to
someone who uses it to buy gas or food or whatever, so ultimately consumption
is pretty proportional to dollars anyway.

------
oxAAAFFB
Just deploy a solar shade, it’s easy.

