
‘Collapse of Civilisation Is the Most Likely Outcome’: Top Climate Scientists - makerofspoons
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/
======
polytely
I feel so helpless about this, I try to limit my own impact on the environment
(not flying, not owning a car) but I know that it's basically useless to solve
this bottom up.

The problem is that the people who are most able to actually tackle this
problem earn their money by causing it, and will be the least affected
personally. The fact that Bezos would rather spend all his money on rockets
instead of mitigating the climate catastrophe is super depressing.

~~~
troughway
Every time a doom thread like this comes up, and I read a comment from someone
who has taken the initiative to limit their own damage, I think back to
Idiocracy and the beginning montage of that film with the educated,
professional couple. I can't help but feel sorry for the couple because in the
end, they are the ones who tried the hardest to "make things right" and have
suffered the most. Now I'm reading this comment and I'm wondering - what is
the lesson here, really?

~~~
polytely
I don't know man, just kinda depression posting from my tiny room. I want to
do something about it, because I haven't lost all hope yet, but I don't see a
clear way how I personally could have any real impact.

I wish I had enough cash to quit my job for a while and figure where I could
make a difference, but I'm kinda barely hanging on as it is.

It just bums me out that so much time and effort in the tech-sphere is spent
on improving the efficiency of our destruction of the planet, and that the
people who got rich of this destruction seem very content sitting on their
pile of cash.

------
rayiner
Note that this is _not_ the consensus view among climate scientists. The IPCC
has never embraced the notion of civilization-ending runaway effects. And even
the pessimistic among climate economists (who rely on IPCC projections about
the effects of climate change) have predicated impacts somewhere along the
lines of 10-15% of global GDP: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-06/are-
economists-unders...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-06/are-economists-
understating-or-overstating-climate-change-cost/11929098).

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
I've followed the IPCC and knew some scientists. From what I gathered the IPCC
seemed to be toning down their scenarios to make them politically palatable.
Just an impression.

> the pessimistic among climate economists have predicated impacts somewhere
> along the lines of 10-15% of global GDP

Economists decided to disregard externalities. I've zero faith in official
economics. And newspapers try not to scare people, that's where they make
their money from.

Added: the climate scientists I knew were borderline panicking 15 years ago at
least.

~~~
me_me_me
Economists people who believe in infinite growth in finite world.

They made up Nobel in Economics to pretend to be scientists.

They might start wearing mystical robes and give themselves funny titles.
Since they are as useful at guessing how economy works and how to steer as
other 'officials' who wear mystical robes and have funny titles. Both are also
always 100% they are right about everything.

Sorry about ranting, reading about climate change always puts me in depressing
mood.

~~~
rayiner
The economics of climate change aren’t about prognostication. The climate
scientists produce projections about impacts on, e.g. agriculture. Economists
simply estimate what the economic impacts would be if those impacts in those
economic sectors happened.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Many economists and politicians were deaf to the phrase 'tipping point'.
Again, they chose not to hear it.

~~~
rayiner
The tipping point analysis is encapsulated into the IPCC projections the
economists are relying on. If by "tipping point" you mean "runaway" effects--
IPCC scientists have not embraced such effects as likely.

------
qubex
My God what a bleak read. It summarises everything that I fear: that our
“height of civilisation” is an uncharacteristic blip (coincidentally solving
the Fermi Paradox, but I digress), that various thresholds have already been
crossed, that the nonlinear dynamics of the system will push inevitably
towards a new attractor (“Hothouse Earth”, in this lexicon), and that we’ve
societally collectively blundered into this outcome and that we lacked the
collective willpower to inflict upon all of ourselves an absolutely
unfathomable setback.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Blunder implies not seeing. We chose not to see.

------
logicslave
Been hearing this for 40 years now. Will we be reading this in another 40
years? Call me a skeptic, get angry at me, but I'll believe it when I see it.

~~~
freen
The coronavirus was the trial run for climate change.

If you thought in February that it wasn’t a big deal, if you listened to folks
who said “the cases will go to zero soon”, well, perhaps you should check your
epistemology and listen to folks who know what they are talking about.

~~~
Cerium
What is bothering me now, is that the coronavirus response provides damning
evidence against our ability to act on climate change, but it is also stealing
our time to act.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I think it's maybe slowing it down. The more we lockdown, the less emissions
we're using. It's kind of a win/win...except for the economic fallout.

~~~
loopz
Reducing air pollution actually accellerates external input leading to global
warming. Also, pollution is back higher than before in China "after" Corona.
Latest development is rising infection rates in countries opening up. There's
a balancing act how much we "open up", vs what measures have most impact. The
last part should be solvable.

------
haltingproblem
The upside is now I can finally buy that hummer I have been eyeing. Gas prices
at historic lows, it wil be even more of a bargain!

Incredible word-salad here:

 _" “Given the momentum in both the Earth and human systems, and the growing
difference between the ‘reaction time’ needed to steer humanity towards a more
sustainable future, and the ‘intervention time’ left to avert a range of
catastrophes in both the physical climate system (e.g., melting of Arctic sea
ice) and the biosphere (e.g., loss of the Great Barrier Reef), we are already
deep into the trajectory towards collapse,” said Steffen."_

Momentum in human systems? Reaction time? Trajectory of collapse? This is what
gives science a bad name. Scientists were against masks because of "lack of
evidence". Result: 10s of thousands are dead who could have survived. No
consequences for said scientists who simply forgot that absence of evidence is
not evidence of absences. Now other scientists want to flip lack of evidence
on its head and spin up grotesque scenarios that require wholesale planetary
changes, sacrifices, death and economic destruction not to mention inter-
governmental coordination. Scientism at its finest.

Climate change when it happens and devastates us will owe more to this
_activist_ catastrophic doom-mongering and condescension than human apathy or
inaction. If climate scientists really care about the environment, they need
to come down from their high horse and talk to people respectfully as
scientists instead of as activists [1]. Do science not activism and don't
exceed your brief.

[1] [https://mindmatters.ai/2020/06/twenty-years-on-aliens-
still-...](https://mindmatters.ai/2020/06/twenty-years-on-aliens-still-cause-
global-warming/)

------
whatshisface
Coronavirus has taught us two clear lessons: nothing will be done until the
effects are clearly visible, and the measures will be removed as soon as the
effects subside. If civilization was driving a car it wouldn't hit the breaks
until it heard its front bumper getting crushed.

------
lvass
Searching terms like "neoliberal" is a great way to vet articles like these. I
don't care about your "scientific" opinion if you're more interested in
generating this type of political discussion.

------
pentae
So if we could develop a global carbon tax which 100% of the funds goes into
atmospheric carbon capture and over a 10 year timeframe bring our Co2 levels
back to 1900 levels what then? Still too late?

~~~
padseeker
We can't even get people to believe that global warming is happening. We've
had multiple tax cuts in the USA since 2000. We have an elected president that
doesn't believe it global warming, we have an electorate that is more
concerned about stupid meaningless crap rather than real policy and change.
Policy ideas are not the problem. There is insufficient political will on the
part of voters. WE are the problem.

It's not just the USA, but we are the second largest polluter, and the largest
economy in the world, and the worst polluters per capita. If people who vote
don't demand this, or hold massive protests to bring the economy to a
screeching halt then no policy change will happen.

------
SpicyLemonZest
I really wish this article included the argument behind the claim that "+4°C
world would support < 1 billion people". I can understand why it'd be a very
_different_ world, and why there might be a lot of struggles on the way, but
the idea that it'll be literally impossible to grow enough food doesn't make
much sense to me. Why couldn't we support the same number as today by planting
slightly more heat-tolerant crops?

~~~
ClumsyPilot
I certainly can't justify the actual number, but we have very little in the
way of drought tolerant crops. Most plants that produce a lot of calories -
from potato to avocado - require plenty of fresh water. If there is suddenly a
shortage of water for irrigation, and of natural rainfall, most crops will
fail. I am talking about crops failing in Europe, the areas that are already
arid are totally fucked.

There are two possible remedies: cultivation of new drought resistant breeds,
and glasshouses.

Cultivation of neew breeds takes decated, even with GMOs. To date we have
never demonstrated adding drought resistance to a staple crop to the extent
that it would survive significant droughts. Could it be done if suddenly
unlimited funding became avaliable? Who knows.

Regarding glasshouses, they are technically capable of supplying food with
massively reduced water usage, because evaporation can be cobtrolled. Per unit
area, a glasshouse can be >10x as productive as a field.

The challange is that they are massive and take a long time to build because
of scale required. There is also a massive difference how advanced and
effective a glasshouse might be. Your average glasshoe in a backyard isn't
gonna cut the mustard. However, netherlands is the world's second largest
exporter of fruit & veg and they are a tiny country, this is all due to
glasshouses.

Currently only a miniscule amount of your caleries come from greenhouses. We
are talking about a decade-ish to cover enough agricultural land to make a
difference.

~~~
Udik
> If there is suddenly a shortage of water for irrigation, and of natural
> rainfall, most crops will fail.

Are climate change scenarios predicting less rainfall on average? It seems
that the total volume of precipitation is going to _increase_ , not decrease.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-
change-rainfall)

~~~
ClumsyPilot
That's a good point, and that's an area I don't understand. It's important to
look at length of dry spells, which will kill crops, rather than just average
precipitation.

~~~
Udik
Anyway, it seems that for the time being the world is getting greener:

[https://www.thezip.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/20190722_1...](https://www.thezip.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/20190722_115825.jpg)

Article: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-
says...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-
is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/)

Some of it might be due to human intervention (India is mentioned in this
sense) but much else obviously isn't: most of Siberia, Europe (especially
souther Europe, Italy and Greece), Turkey, China _and_ South & North Korea
_and_ Japan[1], the central US and Canada, and even Australia.

[1] I stress these because the article claims the greening follows country
borders and therefore it's due to active human intervention: in fact from the
map it's clear that it doesn't, the whole pacific coast of Asia seems to be
extremely greening.

------
antorsae
I saw this [https://voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-
mo...](https://voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-
outcome-top-climate-scientists/) in HN a few days ago but cannot seem to find
it anymore; looks dupe and the other link in HN already had a discussion.

------
gremlinsinc
Couldn't we, basically build a mega structure to block out the sun, and put us
in a near ice-age to build up ice stores? We maybe have 5 years of horrible
winters and ice, but then after we have enough ice we can leave the shade down
for a bit.

~~~
padseeker
we don't even spend money to maintain our infrastructure, and we're running a
massive deficit, and the current leadership in the US has been removing
regulation connected to environmental protection. How the hell are we going to
get the largest governments of the world or this country to build a mega
structure to block out the sun?

~~~
gus_massa
To make a .1mm (1/32") aluminium foil that shadows all the Earth, the cost is
approximately 84 trillion dollars
[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pi+*+%28%28earth+radiu...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pi+*+%28%28earth+radius%29%5E2%29+*+0.1mm+*+%28density+aluminium%29+*+%28price+aluminium%29+in+dollars)
and that does not include the material to provide some structural support for
the thin surface.

And it doesn't include shipping and handling that is at least 10000 more if
you put it at a geostationary orbit [1].

(And later remember to consider some maintenance cost, fuel for orbit
adjustment...)

If you want to cover only a 1% of the surface, just divide that by 100, that
is about 8400 trillions dollars.

[1] It's a big structure, so the calculation is more complicated than the
calculation with a small satellite. Ask a rocket scientific before launching.

------
bovermyer
I just accept that there's no fix, we're killing the planet, and we have maybe
a few generations left before we go extinct.

The universe doesn't care.

~~~
gus_massa
Extinction is outside the prediction of most (all?) serious models. A big
reduction of population and perhaps nasty living conditions are possible,
anyway.

~~~
bovermyer
For climate change, perhaps. But as with COVID-19, the most serious threats to
our species will come with little to no warning.

It's kind of miraculous that we've survived this long.

------
vixen99
According to Mauna Loa, CO2 was 417 ppm in May, 2.4ppm higher than peak of
2019. The rise has occurred irrespective of the global economy shutdown. Air
travel grounded. Factories closed and huge numbers of cars off the road.

Keeling at the Scripps Institute has said “People may be surprised to hear
that the response to the coronavirus outbreak hasn’t done more to influence
CO2 levels,”. Seems that any reduction in CO2 levels is pretty much impossible
to distinguish from natural variability. So what's next? A permanent shutdown?

------
justinmchase
Climate science models are as inaccurate as corona virus models and for the
same reasons.

------
at_a_remove
My views on this are unlikely to make anyone happy. They do not make _me_
happy. I am in the very grim Club of Rome, "the 29th Day," group. Very
pessimistic. I think the ship probably sailed by about 1950. We staved off
Malthus here and there, but to do it indefinitely requires geometric
advancements not just in agriculture but in literally every field in the
supply chain, such as energy and mining, even physical space.

It's all about tradeoffs. The largest tradeoff is "population as a function of
lifestyle." You can support a lot more miserable people in lousy conditions
receiving poor medical care than you can one person living well. It's about
resources expended per person. Even after you get hyper-efficient, it's still
about resources expended per person. There's no escaping that reckoning ...
you can delay it with marginal improvements to efficiency here and there, but
once you've squeezed those out, it's "how well do you want this person to
live?"

While you can _briefly_ support a large populace, you might not be able to
sustainably, over generations, _carry_ that population. This is the "carrying
capacity." Put bluntly, you can have a lot of goats on an island munching away
faster than the vegetation regrows, but their populace will not collapse until
the vegetation is gone. And I believe that our carrying capacity for "living
like Americans" is far under a billion.

In 1950, our populace was about 2.5 billion, but "living like an American" was
a lower bar. Now we're approaching eight billion, quickly, and the USA (as
well as much of the first world) has been quite busy exporting lifestyle
aspirations via Hollywood or their respective film industries. Even if we
could snap our fingers and cause a zero population growth rate, more and more
of that populace will have growing aspirations.

My guess is that around 1950, civilization could have adopted some kind of one
world government with some very drastic control over reproduction and
allocation over resources. By 1990, that control would have been that much
more draconian. By 2030, the kind of control required to drop the world to
that carrying capacity would be unconscionable by almost any ethical standard
other that "have a functioning civilization still in 2150." It's a kind of
grim Orwellian dystopia with no chocolate rations to lie about, and no spare
capacity for war, one in which a human's viability would be solely decided by
their ability to produce calories and resources in excess of what they have
already consumed, wherein people would have only cots, sleeping in shifts,
rather than a bed of their own. Submarine living. If your only talent is UX
design, you had best hope that you can bend it to overhauling the control
interface for some kind of harvester, wherein the panel will be staffed by
someone who does not know how to read in a now-common hurricane downpour. If
you are selected to reproduce, it will be only on the basis of genetic fitness
to produce small individuals who probably don't need a lot of calories, in
addition to being very healthy -- that almost goes without saying. And there
will be no "inner party" having a grand time -- we simply wouldn't be able to
sustain it.

In short, we had a pretty good time, but we did it for so long that now we're
on lifeboat ethics that are completely at odds with the kind of liberties that
we're used to and revolted over in the past. China's one child per couple will
look like a pipe dream. Think "the Mona Lisa burned to heat this evening's
soup" levels of subsistence after vast swaths of the populace were quietly
euthanized. _That_ might be our "soft landing." In the 1950s, we might have
avoided gigadeaths. The hard landing looks like your basic Road Warrior
cosplay, with some desperate nukes thrown around, a few biological agents
escaping, and so forth on top of freshwater scarcity and so on.

At this point, I can only consider myself fortunate to be too old to have to
witness it. I haven't reproduced and I have been ringing this particular bell
since the day I apprehended our situation, but like most bad news, nobody
wants to hear it, and especially if it goes against our basic instincts and
philosophies.

If we do not control our populace, Nature will do it for us, and we are aware
of Nature's methods. We have been for centuries. We willfully elected not to
look at the difficult problem and have done so for generations. Let the good
times roll, until we hit the brick wall. Then the Horsemen will ride.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Would it be sustainable if we all go on a pilgrimage to the

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones)
?

edit: Of course i'd prefer to ride in on

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Mustang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Mustang)

(because reasons, amongst them
[https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=Denver+Airport+Murals&iax=i...](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=Denver+Airport+Murals&iax=images&ia=images)
)

------
rgrieselhuber
And it's all your fault, middle class America!

~~~
polotics
Not at all what the article says. No mention of anyone at fault even.

~~~
ClumsyPilot
i think the author is being sarcastic.

~~~
polotics
Low grade troll rather

