People and politicians are all talk and no action — denial or cognitive dissonance — it doesn’t matter as long as nothing gets done. The same result.
I live in a town where people fight any improvement that might make pedestrian life better, with less reliance on a car, even over the smallest inconvenience (e.g. another crosswalk).
I live in a small net-zero house with solar panels and an electric car. Meanwhile the local oil company/refinery gets subsidies so it can afford to operate.
Some of the local schools threaten kids with failing grades if they strike for climate but missing school for sporting events is encouraged.
It’s hard not to be discouraged but I’ve come to the point of just doing what I can and making it a priority in my own life and for my family. Not sure what else to do.
It's also pragmatic and talks about what's being done. Very worthwhile reading in its entirety.
When I picture why certain family members have a hard time accepting the reality of global warming, it certainly comes down to difficulty grappling with emotions, not a hard review of the literature.
Recognizing emotions as part of the problem and solution feels like a big step.
I think this is actually the worst thing we can do. Science is facts, cold hard facts.
If you want to get rid of the science and focus on emotions, then the solutions to the _real_ problem will get distorted.
The author talks about cancer diagnoses. This is an apt analogy, and there is a huge body of science for helping individuals cope with personal tragedy. Global warming is a global and personal tragedy. People will have their livelihoods ruined, and people will die. People already have, but (since this is a anglophile community) this forum is mostly insulated from developments in North Africa, the Middle East, Central America... how it impacts us is in the nationalistic/xenophobic movements around the resulting human migrations. Acknowledging this will prevent conflict and harm those that cynically try to take advantage of groups of people in vulnerable states through demagoguing.
The science should be cold an unemotional. The policy dictated by the science should be sensitive to the mental health of everyone as they absorb the magnitude of this disaster.
I'd rather have a cold hard doctor that fixes my cancer, than feel good about dying.
Otherwise, I will argue that emotions are directly linked to our personal health, but not the climate. It's an entirely different system that has no emotions.
You're not going to fix anything without convincing people do act, and its more likely that you can convince people to act if you can connect with with on an emotional level, rather than just tell them the facts and saying what needs to be done.
We've been telling people the facts for years and it's not done shit.
All a politician has to do is present a real solution, and you will have lots of support. That hasn't happened yet. It wasn't hard to get people to stop littering, because the leaders did something about it, and the followers followed.
It's a leadership issue, not a follower issue. So stop blaming the followers, and blame the leaders.
Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with science? Yes.
Can a warm fuzzy doctor cure cancer with emotions and no science? No.
So, this is not a false dichotomy. The climate can not be changed by feeling different about it.
Is there a solution to climate change that does not involve science? I would argue no.
What they're talking about is how important emotions are when dealing with humans, and you need to deal with humans to solve this problem.
It's a childish ploy to play with emotions, and you will end up with a childish solution playing this game.
Science has won over millions of people with the truth time and time again. To pretend like this issue can only be solved by emotions is a giant lie. We have history to demonstrate this.
If the government made all CO2 emissions illegal tomorrow people wouldn't be able to go to work or feed their families, you'd have massive riots and the government would either change their minds or be thrown out.
> To pretend like this issue can only be solved by emotions is a giant lie.
Yet again, absolutely nobody is saying this.
How would people feel about saving the entire human race? Maybe that's the problem, it's "feelings", not real solutions.
> Yet again, absolutely nobody is saying this.
They actually are, it's just subtle so maybe you aren't noticing it. There's an attempted shift in the discussion away from very, very real solutions to emotional manipulation.
However, there's no solution to climate science that doesn't involve engaging with humans either. Pathos is a fundamental part of engaging with humans.
That is a tautology. Exactly how much warming are we looking at by 2100? Is it an emergency, an annoyance, or nothing much?
Will higher CO2 concentrations avert an Ice Age in a few thousand years?
The fact is that market forces are looking as if they will greatly reduce CO2 emissions over the next few decades. The wildcard is how quickly China, India, and emerging third world countries will wean off of coal. Nuclear must be a much bigger part of the mix (see ThorCon and others).
In the meantime, most of the "mitigation efforts" look more like unrelated social engineering.
Electric cars still cost to produce what non electrics do, we have to take into account the backend (mining ect) as well. Gas is most likely as bad according to many reports. Countries which have made the switch like Brazil in cars haven’t produced the results expected, again the production is still not clean.
Wind is unreliable in most cases and non scalable. Solar is ok, but expensive and we can’t deploy it for everything(think maritime transport).
The way to solve our problem is with innovation that can really replace our main source of consumption. Think population bomb/explosion in the 50-60s. Whaling shift to electricity and vegetable oils late 1800s. All was replaced by new tech, which has decayed into bad tech, and the new tech we develop will probably also decay into bad tech again in 100years. That’s the way it works. Only realistic current solution is fusion.
Fusion, carbon-sequestering tech, geo-engineering, betavoltaics(One can dream) and new innovations are always the way forward. The rest are bandaids on the dam + have cost us a lot of money/time at subpar results.
Sorry for the quick type, but you can see more here:
One more thing. The only reason fusion is 10-20 years away is because we are still focusing on failed technologies (wind and gas) and not throwing enough resources at fusion. If the government took a Los Alamos approach to fusion and nuclear energy in general we could be up and running in 5 years.
We can't people to stop murdering each other, stealing, lying, or many other harmful things.
You are arguing that propaganda is the solution to climate change. That manipulating people by appealing to their emotions will lower the carbon in the air.
But, you are missing that whoever controls the best manipulation tactic decides the outcome of that manipulation. Want to guess who that will be? The rich and powerful is my guess.
I think we could fix the climate in one simple way, stop polluting. The problem with this is that then the US isn't the biggest polluter, so that is not a "feel good" message.
As adults we have to do things we don't like every day to achieve our goals. We have to choose things that make us unhappy and miserable so our kids have food. Emotions are more often our enemy than our friend.
Science and truth are always neutral, and must be the basis of decisions, unless you are going to agree that we must act like adults and tell everyone they need to chose misery to make a change.
I agree with that, but the people saying it aren't doing it first. That is hypocrisy and the worst form of leadership, and is the enemy of change. Therefore, until the current hypocrite leaders of climate change are replaced with honorable doers, nothing will change.
And shaming the followers into following hypocritical leaders is a recipe for disaster. Hypocrites have no moral base, and act to their own benefit, not yours, the planets only their own.
How do you figure?
Therefore feelings are irrelevant to both the scientific process and the results found from using it.
Have you ever met a scientist in their element? They are passionate, mercurial creatures who will bitterly feud as well as sing the highest praise about their work. This seems to be integral to the process. Curiosity is a feeling, too.
I think you're idealizing science and I don't even think your ideal is a particularly useful aspiration for scientific activity.
I am not idealizing anything, it's an indisputable fact that repeatable scientific results are repeatable by anyone.
There are real solutions to climate change, they can be implemented today, right now. And the followers in society have nothing to do with it, it's the leader responsibility to implement.
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
― Carl Sandburg
The problem with this is that who decides what solution? If the motive for the solution is emotions, then any solution that "feels good" or "appears to solve" the problem will suffice.
This is a stark misrepresentation of my point. Persuading people to accept climate change is (or at least may well be) part of the solution. Persuasion involves an emotional aspect for the majority of people.
On a broader note, motives unavoidably involve emotion, or at least a value judgement. Scientific results never inform what ought to be done. Science does not provide values. It's a tool that helps us to achieve valued outcomes.
This is a political/social issue that has to be approached this way. The science should inform our decisions but in order to reach that goal one might have to do more than insist that the science is correct and doesn’t care about your emotions.
Those that argue against science tend to argue that myths are real. Like the existence of aliens, crystals have magic powers, aligning of chakras, etc...
Edit: An example of science fixing pollution:
You may consider the case of pure mathematics, where intensely creative and open-minded individuals manipulate exotic structures atop towering ladders of abstraction; such exploration is the source of much of our most powerful technology and insights into reality. If you listen to explanations of the working methods employed by mathematicians many of them will claim that among the tools they rely upon most heavily are intuition and "feeling".
Once you move beyond the unfortunate anti-human perspective of what I'll half-jokingly call "extreme scientific materialism" and accept the fundamental role of the human experience in the unfolding of the cosmos you might come to see that a mind bent on pure rationality (to the exclusion of all else) is like a beautiful, fueled-up airplane idling on the runway with no pilot in it.
A non-functioning solution that feels good won't fix the climate. Arguing that feelings are relevant isn't a fix.
The great leaders down through history did not rely on making people feel good, they did the opposite. They inspired people to take on real difficulties. To face _not_ feeling good.
That is the problem right now, hypocritical leadership has no ability to inspire or motivate and will not make any changes to the climate.
After you’ve had 100 people tell you that, you’ll probably change your mind.
Social media has made the problem worse. For some reason, deniers flood the discussion with silly statements like that.
I keep the xkcd cartoon handy for any discussions:
Nothing I said can be interpreted as saying this.
Prepare yourself if you can.
Globally, it's much worse. People are showing up from Central America because of crop failures. That is climate change induced human migration. Syria collapsed because of climate change based crop failures. The "Arab Sprint" was in large part because of agricultural productivity issues due to climate change. Large cities in Africa and south Asia are running out of water.
I agree with your points that crops are already failing. It just hasn’t impact the first world middle class yet.
1. Renewable energy (solar and wind mainly) is shitty mostly, not delivering, huge resources required, and huge backup battery/hydro storage required.
SOLUTION = Nuclear
2. EV cars are junk, poorly packed energy, much less than gasoline per kg, giving bad range and big mass overhead to vehicle (meaning also bigger energy consumption). You just feel eco but price is paid in electrical infrastructure / power-plants / battery materials.
SOLUTION=Nuclear again, then you can pack your cheap electricity back to chemical energy and use totally clean ICE which now has totally clean exhaustion (no impure fossil shit).
3. Recycling (although not highlighted in article) is waste of time and resources (mostly), moving junk around the globe so that you can feel green :D
SOLUTION=Nuclear again, just get abundant cheep electricity and burn it with plasma torches. Don't send you garbage to China, even they don't want it.
In short, Fusion would be great, Fission will save us also. Just stop wasting time/money/resources on other stupid ideas that change nothing and sometimes do more harm than original solution they have replaced.
There is not enough time left for a nuclear revolution.
It's not like solar panels come out of thin air either. Same with windmills...
To build solar or wind at the scale we need would be quite the "revolution". Probably even more so than nuclear because you'd have no way to store the energy unless you went absolutely mad with lithium mining and battery production. Which would also take years to scale.
Truth is - both options are difficult. But I think nuclear is a lot easier and it's surprising that it meets so much resistance all the time. It's much more like take a few square miles out of a few geographies and you get reliable power. Versus - miles and miles of solar panels (that you may or may not be able to fly over and are very prone to the weather of the day) or windmills (killing all the birds and not so great sound for anyone close). And then the battery farms you gotta spread around everywhere... Or have everyone purchase $5,000+ in batteries that have to be replaced every X years.
I know that nuclear power plants are a large scale event but so is creating a factory to make PVs. Same with lithium mines. Same with refinement of that lithium. Now we're getting into having to create lots of steel for wind turbines too.
In my mind, you get to the end in 10 years with nuclear. With solar, you get to production capacity to solve the issue in 10 years while slowly addressing the problem along the way. I think the dent you'd make in 10 years while ramping up to production capacity would at best just match increased demand.
Then you have large swaths of land that are dedicated to solar cells, wind turbines, refineries, factories, and mines we had to use for all the lithium. (Not that some of those won't exist for nuclear)
Check out how fast you can ramp up production when in need :D
Problem is that if you ramp up solar/wind you will have to ramp up battery/hydro for backup if you want to stay clean. Nuclear does not need batteries. If you have cheap nuclear, than you make real changes in transport and recycling.
First off, if that is the case you can be sure we'll end "above 2°" (by which I'm sure you mean 2° above some earlier average). China and India alone have massive projected tails for their CO2 output.
Second, "10 years of emissions left"? You're suggesting that somehow C02 emissions could be curtailed completely within 10 years? Absurd...
Neither transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity are known well enough to make such pronouncements - but the global warming alarmists feel it necessary to periodically throw a deadline out there. They think it's good psychology, and will lead to more panic...whether or not such panic is actually justified.
You expect to have all fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide phased out within 20 years? Including aircraft? What about cargo ships?
There is no practical chance of even hitting the lowest trajectory IPCC target, much less something considerably below that.
One of the best things overall is to promote next generation nuclear power as a major alternative to coal. If coal could be phased out entirely within 20-30 years that would be a huge win. Perhaps grid storage could largely replace gas generation.
That would leave fossil fuels mainly in transportation, which would be a giant improvement over today.
Lower CO2 trajectories give more time to rigorously evaluate the science, get more data, and develop revolutionary technology.
Just look how much waste is going around a globe and do rough calculation how much oil is used only for transport!
Nuclear energy danger???
I am deeply sad because events like Chernobyl and Fukushima have stopped nuclear revolution when it could have made huge difference. Remember that Fukushima had 15000+ dead from tsunami and only 1 from radiation!
I will try to remeber/find more, at work now so...
I'll give one example.
IMO, the solution to the energy problem is obvious: Nuclear. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and most stable form of energy production we have right now. It really works great. We should close all coal/gas plants and replace them with nuclear plants asap.
Nuclear's best feature is that it produces no carbon to the atmosphere, and right now, that should be our main concern. But it just so happens that it's also the safest form of energy (death per kwh) and the most stable (active production days per year). Plus we know how to take care of the nuclear waste. Sure it has disadvantages but the overall solution given our situation is totally clear.
The only reason this doesn't happen is the public's perception of nuclear being "evil" and radiation being scary. So no politician despite their good intentions can ever hope to rally the people behind them with this idea.
So we push wind and solar which are a joke. Especially given the urgency of the times. When we site "Renewable energy" we mean bio-mass. . Bio-mass is just burn wood. It's renewable because it releases young carbon so its net-zero emissions.
- the price of wind and solar and batteries have dropped dramatically, making them price competitive with coal and vastly cheaper than nuclear.
- we're running out of time. We need to get these plants active within a decade and nuclear plants take longer than that to build. We've lost the institutional knowledge on how to build them.
On the scale in the linked article, I'm probably a four or five, but I'm also in my late thirties and don't plan to have kids. So while I stay informed, I don't worry. If I was younger or planned to have kids, I'd be fuming. It's unbelievable how badly our so called leaders, especially in the US have fucked us.
...in effect that we are not competent to solve this or our other key problems while rejecting the creator (and basic rules like honesty and the Golden Rule), and that none of the current events should be surprising at all, though they are sad. These are predicted, expected, and it will get worse, but we can be at peace and seek good things, and really, we can be OK. Linked to details on why I think that, and more info.
For example- Do we know what took the carbon dioxide level high during 400000 and 320000 years ago, aftermath and things that brought the level down eventually in next few thousand years before the rise (again)?
I want to sponsor planting trees, but I worry that we're doing far too little, far too late.
We're fucked, but at least have your conscience clean. Anything helps: eat less meat, plant some trees, start recycling, bike to work, refuse single-use plastic, sacrifice a little bit of your personal convenience for the benefit of the planet. Do anything you weren't doing until today.
Nobody will save the planet on their own, but a large swath of people doing one single thing is bound to have some effect. It won't cancel out the damage for sure, but at least it would minimize the effects a tiny bit.
Quite. As I did in another thread, I'd like to point to the Extinction Rebellion as a pragmatic way to panic (eh, act):
[ed: also mentioned in tfa.]
The last best time was yestrday. The next best one is now.
I'll do something today about the climate and planting trees. I'm not physically able to plant stuff myself, so it will have to be something I donate to. I can also push my employer to start sponsoring climate disaster mitigation efforts.
Extinction Rebellion, organisers of the civil disobedience protests in the UK and elsewhere - https://rebellion.earth
Client Earth, a legal charity aiming to repeatedly take governments to court on climate matters. Became much more visible when Dave Gilmour made a major donation recently: https://www.clientearth.org
They're not quite as established in the US yet as they landed there later, but are active and growing. The whole movement is only around a year or so old. They've achieved remarkable visibility and growth the time since the first UK demos.
Client Earth has a US arm: https://www.clientearth.org/usa/ though it doesn't look terribly active. I suspect there are better US equivalents that have achieved more stateside. I don't know who though, sorry.
If nobody ever tries, nothing will ever change. Change inspires change. Someone seeing you plant a tree might very well decide to plant one themselves.
Live a life that requires no apology, starting today. Too little, too late? I don't know, not much I can do about that. But what I can do is live a life less impactful on the environment, which is what I ought to be doing climate change or not. Perhaps climate change is your personal wake up call to dial back on the life of consumerism. Maybe it's a call to examine some other aspect of your life, I dunno. Regardless, it is an opportunity for examination, and answering the question of your place in the your environment and your impact on it. The rest of it will take care of itself, one way or another.
... why aren't you, then? Taking personal steps towards improving things is by far the best thing you can do for your personal feelings of guilt. It won't solve the bigger issues. But collective behavior is built on lots of independent individual action.
There is a technical ability to save this. There is a long way to go in a relatively short time to create the necessary awareness and accept the necessary "sacrifices".
Thanks for the reply, and I'm really happy to hear that.
Do you have any idea how I, or anyone else, can do this?
So if you're serious, try to get a career in politics. Good Luck!
The politics don't even agree relative to the side. Climate change has left the spectrum of left-right wing.
This isn't just something unique to environmentalism either; I believe the same thing happened to net neutrality when Obama made a big speech about it when 90% of Americans didn't even care about it beforehand, and I'm hoping to god the same thing doesn't happen to the right to repair because all successful progress on it will grind to a halt the minute it does.
The problem of politicization of climate change are people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She has declared that the world will be uninhabitable in less than 12 years. Humanity will be dead in 12 years.
Her fix? She wants to ban airplanes, boats, and cars(non-electric) this sounds rather absurd. A democratic senator from Hawaii asked her what she thought about what would happen to Hawaii. She didnt have an answer. Then she went further. They want to basically setup the various usual communist things. This is the real goal of the new green deal. Her own chief of staff publicly admitted the new green deal originally didn't have anything to do with the climate. It was entirely about pushing a communist agenda.
Which is why it was voted down unanimously in the senate.
They don't care about climate change, they are using it in name to push their agenda.
6 Educating Girls
7 Family Planning
This is only a polite way to say we are overpopulated and should have fewer children.
It's not the vast majority in developing nations that are using up all our fossil fuels and poisoning the planet, it's us. And the damage being done in developing nations is nearly all to serve our needs in the developed world. We are the problem.
See also things like https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/10/carnival-cruise-ships-pr...
Imagine the greenhouse load reduction from having half the population. It wouldn't surprise me if it's easier to push population growth down than it is to have good habits, especially after the low hanging fruit is plucked.
If the developed world (that's us) fixes the way they consume and becomes sustainable, then it doesn't matter how much people consume sustainably because it'll be...you know, sustainable.
We control our own actions. Our continued individual consumption leads to CO2 emissions. It's in our power to radically reduce our own carbon footprint by scaling back our lives. Not seeking out environmentally-friendly alternatives, but by curbing our out-of-control consumption urges which lie at the heart of this entire mess.
However, this requires painful, life-changing choices for many. Foregoing the house in the burbs for a walkable/rideable commute. Shunning unsustainable locations like Silicon Valley, even if that means reduction in income. Scaling way back on air travel. Avoiding foods grown in rainforest whose consumption encourages deforestation (e.g., coffee). Living far below our means, in other words.
Stop blaming Trump. Rejoining the Paris Accords won't solve the problem. Far more radical adjustments will be needed to prevent even the mildest effects now being predicted.
I want to see people voicing climate change concerns recommending the only thing that audience members can directly control - live a far simpler life and start doing it now. Stop complaining about how impractical this option is. This is what every "leader" is doing, from CEOs to presidents. Act - just like you are expecting others to do so.
Any pragmatic strategy to reduce the impact of climate change must start with international cooperation. From the point of view of the USA, this must start with a new administration. Then, with this cooperation we could find actions not strictly rooted in dreamy idealism, including enforcing the changes in lifestyle you mention at scale. (Through agreements, tariffs, etc.) A real global strategy also needs to involve some very bitter pills and compromises, e.g. taking a fresh look at nuclear, geoengineering research, and having the hard conversations about global population growth in emerging countries, and what people will do in the vast regions of the world which won't be habitable for much longer.
Any other strategy is just wishful thinking, and avoiding the cold hard facts. And the facts on this will catch up. All the trees you can plant or the most frugal lifestyle you are capable of will make precisely zero difference if it isn't based on global cooperation. Andrew Yang in the most recent democratic debate was right: a lot of the damage is already done and some of the discussion needs to be about how we can move to higher ground.
I have the opposite experience in my life so far (40yo), and I am a perpetrator of this “strategy”.
Ask yourself, for example, why the nature of humans is that hopeless for you. How are the humans around you? (also those in the news)
What if - before fixing earth - i fix myself? My circle of friends, of colleagues, the family... from my most intimate partner to the whole society it looks like a long way .
But I will be surprised how many humans can change for good, just because I was the one changing first.
it will never stop.
Not much happened under the old administration. Things got worse.
Personal choice matters little globally. It's too late for the pebbles to vote, so to speak.
Is not the personal, voluntary choice to use Facebook a decision that matters globally? There is no compulsion or legislation there. At least not in the form that many might think.
China and India contribute 4-10 times less CO2 per capita than the US.
Personally I am not happy going down the route of weighting the value of humans, but if we don't come up a solution to global warming that is politically actionable, somebody will start arguing that the west should do something about the rise of China and India. If we can only support 4 billion people on the planet, nobody will want to be in the group that has to be killed.
I’m so confused, do you honestly and in good faith make a statement like that? Do you not understand the disastrous social and political implications of approaching the problem like that? Do you not understand that fairness is central to this problem because a coordinated global effort is necessary and there is no fascist world police and hopefully never will be so we are dependent on convincing everyone and fairness is obviously central to this?
Humans care about per capita emissions because that’s one of the only ways to make this fair and we need to make this fair or else we will convince no one.
You are solving a social/political problem. Arrogant statements like yours won’t.
Per capita only matters if you're okay ignoring the bulk of the problem.
And rising, fast.
Besides that, the planet doesn't care about per capita numbers.
If climate change is a real concern, it's going to be a requirement.
Hypocrisy is rampant in the discussion about climate change.
Irrationality and emotions are manipulation tactics, not solutions, therefore nothing will actually change with the climate.
The worst is when _real_ demonstrable solutions are presented and rejected because they don't "feel good" or make some kind of marketing splash.
Agreed, but if a person who owns multiple homes and flies between them says it, it’s clear that they want you to believe something that they don’t believe themselves. The climate movement really needs to divest itself of celebrities because they do nothing but undermine the message.
1. Have fewer kids. (but only some countries)
2. Don't fly so much. (but we can fly anytime we want in our private planes)
3. Per capita pollution needs to go down. (but not for us and our private planes)
4. You need to lower carbon emissions by changing your purchasing habits. (but we can buy private yachts and multiple homes)
5. Use paper straws in plastic bags. (instead of plastic straws in paper bags)
6. Take action to prevent carbon increase (but only things we approve of (ie, no planting trees...))
It seems that the loudest and biggest hypocrites are the rich and powerful.
If it is that much a threat, why aren't we primarily powered by nuclear? Cost can't be a factor because countries are bending over to spend hundreds of billions investing in some version of a green deal.
No compromises because it's too late for compromises they say. I wonder why
We can't all do this, unfortunately. And I don't mean "us on HackerNews", I mean "us, globally".
>dvocate for population control of African and Asian populations that are adding on the order of net 85 million additional humans to the planet every year
This is a tough one. It's widely known that simply being born or having children contributes more to climate change than almost every other single source. And yet, rapid population growth in the 2nd/3rd world is a taboo subject.
Population control is a taboo subject anywhere, unfortunately.
I don't even know why I have to be called a climate change denier or skeptic. The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing to prove it. As to say, it is not my job to disprove something that hasn't been proved.
Now obviously there is "proof" in circulation. But what is it proving? Have any prediction targets been met at all? How much will the sea tides rise and when? How much would have they risen given natural cycles? Even if man mad emissions weren't affecting the temperature would a climate scientist be able to predict the temperature 5 years from now?
Nasa has a few articles about how Earth is much greener than 40 years ago due to global warming -> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/3/graphic-warmer-...
Are we simply waiting for this new vegetation to mature and reduce carbon emissions? Is anyone factoring in potential plant growth? Could they even measure that? Maybe the earth knows how to naturally cycle?
As I've aged, all I have seen is men make futile predictions about everything under the sun. The more and more variables and extrapolations added to a problem generally leads to an exponentially bad answer. I'm sure anyone who works in a job that does heavy spread sheet work can twist any bunch of numbers to fit a departments desired figure.
Furthermore, the mass fervour of the world for climate change should induce skepticism. Where is everyone getting their sources from?
Arguments such as:
"Think about the children"
"Save the planet"
Are typically go to answers of people who can't make a real point.
Now it is not anyone's fault that they should act hysterical, the authority that is trickling down all this information should be a bit more out spoken. The media also needs to drop the term "experts" and "scientists".
I'd just like to know, in 10 years from now, if carbon emissions were at 19th century level, what would be the temperature be? and at our current rate of carbon emission what will the temperature be? With what degree of accuracy will the figure hold up to? Other then reducing man made emissions, what other planetary behaviour will also reduce carbon emissions? Can they be predicted and have you included them in the report?
Not even going to bother with the political aspect of this all, which actually may well be the majority of this movement. If I truely believed climate change were a real problem for the world, as the above posted said, I would be going after all the billion person populations first and foremost.
> I'd just like to know, in 10 years from now, if carbon emissions were at 19th century level, what would be the temperature be? and at our current rate of carbon emission what will the temperature be? With what degree of accuracy will the figure hold up to?
People have written literally thousands of pages that would answer this question. There are hundreds of pages that give a more accessible overview of the research. It would take you less than a minute to start reading some of this
Five years ago when questions like this popped up I would dutifully take the 10 minutes to pull together some links that directly addressed the question.
> The onus is on people who believe the climate is changing to prove it
I don't disagree. But once the people who believe the climate is changing have written millions of words explaining what they believe is happening, surely there is some onus on internetposterN to read some of that before dismissing the entirety of the enterprise by raising a few questions
We need a WW2 scale response, perhaps with similar restrictions like rationing - only this time of carbon or flights etc. Once some nations are active, others will join. Perhaps we need to see carbon and environmental impacts baked into import tariffs to "encourage" reluctant others to join.
This was itself a suspension of normal democratic procedures and conventions. No elections were held in the UK between 1935 and the conclusion of the war in 1945.
The thirties had a succession of mostly weak coalitions in response to the Great Depression.
I would also argue that rationing in general is incompatible with a free country. If necessary add a fair tax that is ear-marked to deal with global warming and which ofsets the damage. No reason to add more bureaucracy.
I don't see how rationing impacts a free country one way or another as it's merely a method of achieving a fair distribution of a limited resource. The US also had rationing in WW2, introduced after Pearl Harbor. Was the US still a free country?
But more to the point: rationing is stupid, since you are strictly better of taxing the good you want to limit, and if necessary spend some of the tax in direct payments to those with the least income. The free market will take care of pricing the use of the taxed commodity correctly and the poor will be better of.
In the case of wartime fuel rationing, and perhaps if we were to end up with a carbon ration, it achieves a fair distribution, without the wealthy simply being able to pay extra not to participate. With enough wealth someone may not care that something carries a punitive tax rate, and they can continue being part of the problem.
In times of crisis, such as wartime or a failing ecosystem, we may find that ability to pay your way out of it unacceptable. Reasonably so in my opinion.
But at that point I would opt for letting climate change hit. In the absence of catastrophic events we will need more energy today than we needed yesterday. So either we find a solution to increasing needs or problems will arise.
In developed economies, this hasn’t been true in recent years.
Energy use (electricity, gas, coal, etc) peaked during the 2000s and has been mainly in decline since, despite economic and population growth.
Through improved technology, we have been able to extract more economic value from less energy. Hopefully this trend will continue.
Climate change could well kill us all, but at least we'll die free.
Politicians and voters too often act in short term self-interest rather than long-term economic and environmental interests.
“Give me that tax cut, big pickup truck, and cheap gas! Leave it to our grandchildren to figure out how to survive in the face of catastrophic global heating. Not our problem!”
But I agree "everyone emit less carbon and hamstring your economy" will not work without literal worldwide fascism.
Anyway, that won't happen. At some point the effects of climate change will be so evident that everyone will scream for action. And at that point it will be too late to do anything meaningful.
Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?
>but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?
That's the question everyone will have to answer, and it probably boils down to the core of that person's philosophy. People who say "no" though should really consider all of the ugly side-effects that result from all-powerful authoritarian entities being able to control lives on a micro level.
But I said "extinction". Meaning everyone - you, me, my kid, etc. dying, maybe horribly.
Why in the world do you think that democratic structures will make it intact through a descent into extinction. I'm not going to cite Mad Max as a sociological point, but society will break down under unmitigated global warming. When food and water safety cannot be met, law loses its authority. You can see this on a small scale after cyclone landfalls.
Nasa has a few articles about how Earth is much greener than 40 years ago due to global warming -> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/3/graphic-warmer-....
"Think about the children" "Save the planet"
My only question is what to do when the world actually ends in 10 or so years. I'm thinking of quitting my job in SF and moving to a rural area in northern midwest far from the oceans, but I haven't been able to get my family or friends to join me. I'm worried about the ahem political affiliations of those areas as well.
Does anybody have a good plan for what to do when the worst disasters occur? Like food shortages?
I wonder how many suicides are provoked by it, for example?
We'll eat your 5 dogs!
Don't worry, I'm sure all the farming, gun-toting deplorables that the coastal cities detest will be more than happy to take the city dwellers in....