
Sir David Attenborough: Climate change 'our greatest threat' - evo_9
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46398057
======
petermcneeley
Contrast this with the fact that paris has had the worst riots in half a
century due to a new carbon tax. [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-
anti-tax-protests-...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-anti-tax-
protests-leave-gas-stations-running-dry-n942871)

~~~
agumonkey
It was painful at first. But do remember that this riot is complex, if not
totally fuzzy, the carbon tax was mostly the straw that broke the camel’s
back, this is more about a long drift in sociopolitical tissue (more taxes,
worse services) than carbon tax itself. Still, painful to see when surrounded
by climate change emergency warnings.

~~~
sebazzz
I found the fact that Poland said that coal is not a major contributor to
climate change even more painful - as being the hosting country.

------
nikofeyn
episode 7, _our blue planet_ , in the _planet earth ii_ series is some of the
hardest television i have watched. i actually couldn't finish the episode.
maybe this is hyperbole to others that have watched it, but it's unbelievable
the effect that humans have had on earth and on our fellow flora and fauna.

~~~
kilotaras
Correction, in "Blue Planet II" series.

~~~
nikofeyn
whoops, i did mean that. sorry, and thanks for catching it.

------
stillsut
The problem is coordination of a Public solution where the will to act lacks a
political majority or super majority. The opportunity is the most progressive
eighth of the first world really wants to address it.

Then the solution is a Private sector one - for this high net worth eighth of
the population to invest the vast majority of their savings portfolio into
green energy sector. But this would be even more effective if we made
investments outflows less possible, so we should create a hedge fund that
would require around one decade of a commitment period. This will supercharge
R&D into this sector leading to better solutions, maybe one a political
majority will support.

It does seem risky to tie your personal finances to the progress of green
energy, but since the climate threat is already the greatest risk of all, it
seems a worthy swap. And since it seems like green energy is a "no-brainer" /
inevitability, then the investment is almost a sure thing to pay off in the
long run. So in the end you'll not only help the planet but help yourself.

------
mark-r
I think the insect apocalypse has the potential to rival climate change as our
greatest threat. At least climate change has a known cause.

~~~
wilburTheDog
Well, one can lead to the other. [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
news/heatwaves-may-dram...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
news/heatwaves-may-dramatically-reduce-insect-fertility-180970819/)

~~~
WorldMaker
In all sorts of surprising ways. For instance, research shows that soybean
plants produce less defensive chemicals in higher CO2 atmospheres, which is a
short term boon to certain leaf-eating insects, presumably at the expense of
long-term sustainability of the plant, future generations of the leaf-eating
insects after the plant's crash, competitor insects, etc.

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm)

------
mccada
Instead of the usual doom and gloom, or abandoning all hope, are there any
tangible ways a person can make a difference? Reducing consumption and
consumerism, energy efficiency and habits changing surely help a little, but
I'm interested in slightly longer term projects (say the next 10 years).

It seems like we're on track for a huge crisis, but as group we're slow to
react.

~~~
sashenka
Going vegan is a great way to reduce your impact on the environment and cut
greenhouse gases. It is the smallest change that has the largest difference.

~~~
rusk
I think the message should be _eat more vegetarian_. If we even ate half the
amount of meat the effect would be dramatic. Not everybody can do full vegan
or even full vegetarian. Don’t scare people with all-or-nothing messaging.

~~~
sashenka
This is definitely true, reducing animal products of any amount helps
tremendously. I did not intend to scare anyone, framing veganism as the goal
is easier just because the vast majority of people can do it.

~~~
rusk
The vast majority of people can’t ... but that’s a discussion for another day
(-:

------
wilburTheDog
A few things to consider on the topic.

It is estimated that there is, on average, a ten year lag between the time CO2
is emitted and the time its maximum effect is felt in the climate. Some
estimate the lag can be even longer. So we haven't yet seen the worst of the
~36GtCO2/yr we've been releasing into the air for the last ten years or so.(1)

Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.(2) And it is at the heart
of one of the positive feedback loops we have started by warming the earth.
The arctic permafrost contains a difficult to estimate but staggeringly large
amount (in the Gigatons) of methane, both in the form of methane hydrates
(frozen methane) and stored carboniferous materials which, when no longer
frozen, are quickly turned into methane by bacteria.(3) At this point existing
warming of the planet has progressed to the point that there is no way to stop
a massive arctic methane release.(4) And, in fact, if you look at the recent
satellite data(5) you will see that the methane levels at most layers of the
atmosphere are higher than the satellite instruments are capable of measuring.

And reducing our emissions may make things worse. The Aerosol Masking Effect
(aka global dimming) is what scientists are calling the fact that sulfur and
other pollutants in the air can reflect sunlight away from the earth and cool
the planet.(6) If we stopped all CO2 emissions today the global temperature
would rapidly rise as the aerosols fell from the atmosphere.

There's a lot more, but I'm feeling too much anxiety about this to go on.

1\.
[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031...](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001)

2\. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-
gree...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-
gas-is-methane/)

3\. [https://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-
breeze/203-subsea...](https://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-
breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-
decline)

4\. [https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-
boost-o...](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-
methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/)

5\.
[https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi...](https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/soundings/iasi/m1/rp/mrm_t1_D3.html)

6\. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/our-aerosol-
emission...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/our-aerosol-emissions-
are-blocking-a-third-of-the-climate-warming/)

------
black6
Why is it always FUD associated with climate change? Are there no _good_
eventualities? Longer growing seasons and more arable land come to mind as
possibilities. Is it because you cannot get funding for your
research/nonprofit/NGO if there is a rosy outlook for the future?

~~~
dunnevens
Sometimes, there are no good eventualities. Maybe Canada and parts of Siberia
might see some benefits. Generally speaking, the rest of us won't. Sure, maybe
you'll get an extra month to grow your tomatoes, but that will be balanced out
by an increase in storms, mass fires, extinctions and sea rise.

But, I guess you can ignore all that. The scientists are just trying to scare
you so they can get a few extra thousand in funding. That's the real problem
here.

