What would these people find more compelling? A slow, systemic process like global warming, which involves incremental changes taking place over decades - or the spectacle of exploding oil refineries, armed drones, and the drama of conflict.
Probably the latter, even if the first is far more catastrophic.
Edit: Imagine what kind of thinking could get this idea downvoted. It is not a good thing.
I think this is religious thinking. You are attacking my idea for being somehow a kind of Wrongthink, and your implication is that expressinf Wrongthink is the reason for the disagreement. But then when you read the comment, it is a statement about what Science is.
That being said, I don't feel my personal opinion matters, what is true is my statement. So I think for any further clarification, my comment should be applied to the subject. Can you scientifically prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Yea. Can you scientifically prove the world is going to end? No. This latter expression of alarmism is an opinion. This kind of consensus is wrong all the time. Remember Morton's skulls? Look up the history of some of the most embarassing Nobel Prizes.
You might think I am a non-believer, heathen by now. Actually, I do try to reduce my carbon footprint, in stark contrast to my observations of most eco-holier-than-thou's behaviors. But I don't buy into the extreme alarmism, nor am I dumb enough to consider this apocalypse a fact. If you're buying this you're just regurgitating ideas that people more powerful than you want you to believe. Probably because they want more authority over the global economy and our lives, and to stop Russia from getting its massive windfall in economic resources that it would get from a significant increase in temperatures.
But yes this religion has truths to it. We should follow a principle to first do no harm, and to artificially impact the climate would break a supposed hippocratic oath. But I find it strange and disturbing how psychopathic everyday people can become when it comes to these things. So much hand waving and holier than thou talk and yet I watch the samd kinds of people's behavior and the two do not reconcile.
This is a radical and extremely dangerous position, which is primarily promoted by sociopathic industries profiting at the expense of global ruin, along with members of the public who they have successfully deluded through a very large-scale long-term propaganda effort.
Events like this can't shake it. Sadly so much money and power involved in the oil business.
And looking into what giant energy companies are doing for more money and power, you realize the last thing they care is ecosphere.
Does anyone know?
Dont want to come across as a denier, this is a genuine question.
Global warming doesn't have a simple solution. We need to attack a large number of problems simultaneously if we want a chance to prevent catastrophe.
From the proverbial horse's mouth.
Overall that article is completely meaningless in relation to climate change. Looking at current events doesn't really tell us anything about the future 30 years. Everything could change or not. Current emissions are already leaving us in a bad spot, future emissions may rise because of developing countries consuming more fossil fuels. Maybe it is impossible to stop using fossil fuels.
The overall trend is that renewables and gas would hit the 45-45% mark soon enough for electricity production since coal plants are closing and almost no new nuclear plants are being built, and existing one will shut down.
If you look at when coal usage in Europe started to slow down it ties directly to those two sources rather than an environmental policy.
Despite the availability of renewables the need for energy isn’t slowing down so the total emissions while dampened a bit aren’t slowing down that much either, at least not because of that.
Obviously that is a point of view though, and we are free to disagree :)
Climate change isn’t much of a risk to humans as a species just yet, it is however very much a risk to human civilization as we know it.
That's not actually helpful to existing ecosystems, let alone to us.
> And it's not surprising since plants evolved on an earth with CO2 in the thousands of PPM.
None of the current ecosystems (to say nothing of humanity, let alone human civilisations) did. The last time CO2 was above 1000ppm was some time before the E-Og extinction event, 34Ma.
Virtually all modern plants grow at higher rates right up to 1200PPM. I'm not sure how taller trees and taller grasslands would affect us negatively.
Presumably, more plant life means more animal life. As there is more food to support ecosystems.
And it wouldn't necessarily. The thing most of us are concerned with, is to preserve our ecosystem as we know it. Part of it is bebause we know it can sustain us (selfishly).
Another part is, fast changes are hard to adapt to, and fast changes in the environment have already sparked multiple mass extinction events.
And ecosystems are complex and interlinked. They are flexible to an extent, but something that's good for part of the ecosystem isn't necessarily good for the rest; it's easy to have it all collapse (this is documented, as we have witnessed multiple local ecosystem collapses over the years, and it's quite simple to imagine).
Of course, what you say is also true. But, for instance, how do the same plants grow in warmer temperatures? With less water? Without the usual organic life in the soil?
Our ecosystems are not so resilient once we stress them too much, too quickly. Our current way of life is just irresponsible. Let's stop burying our heads in the sand, and come up with rationalizations that arise from cognitive dissonance (which I suspect is what drove you to write this post).
Because it's only "good for plant life" in the very long (geological) term. In the short and medium (again, geological) terms it's a significant upheaval which is good for pretty much nothing.
> Virtually all modern plants grow at higher rates right up to 1200PPM. I'm not sure how taller trees and taller grasslands would affect us negatively.
The 1200 PPM CO2 and associated effects would do that, especially in the short-term, it would take tens of thousands of years for new ecological equilibriums to be reached during which the entire web would be broken.
> Presumably, more plant life means more animal life
It would mean very different animal life. The intermediary period would be mass deaths across the board.
 at the very least, could be millions depending on the scale of disruption, it took ~2My for the ecosphere to stabilise after K–Pg, and a further ~8My for it to recover pre-K-Pg levels of diversity. Local disruptions are easily resolved as species can migrate from neighbouring non-disrupted ecosystems but global disruptions (of the entire ecosphere or of a very isolated ecosystem) not so.
A study on PPM experiments with 3 grass species:
Cool I'm very happy for your environmentally controlled greenhouse. Outside the greenhouse, CO2 levels affect more than just plant growth.
When the entire climactic pattern and of an area changes, which plants (and animals) can thrive in it also changes, the old ecosystem is destroyed and it takes time for a new stable ecosystem to establish itself.
And the faster the original disruption the more difficult the transition is.
"We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious"
Rising CO2 means reducing performance for humans and other animals. Not a huge problem if you're an agricultural worker working fields near sea level. For those in offices, cities and especially at higher elevations it's simply going to increase the chances of problematic concentrations.
Netflix for news is such an obvious unicorn and seems like it would be a better situation for medium sized publications like Bloomberg. I don't understand how it doesn't exist yet.
Afaik, Blendle is also expanding to the US.
Three key assumptions are that
#1 consumers are unwilling to forget the "luniversal availability of the decades of ad-financed web
#2 consumers are unwilling to have more subscriptions than they had in the age of paper (exactly one, almost universally)
#3 the discrepancy between #1 and #2 makes consumers not pay at all unless "Netflix for news" or something equivalent is available
#4 news sites understand and accept the implications, particularly that giving away content to someone who already had a subscriptions elsewhere isn't a lossy sale, due to #2
Main challenges are defining and enforcing the content availability delta between "home" subscription and co-subscription and dealing with price differentials (perhaps by defining the co-subscription availability as a freely scalable ramp?)
Bloomberg has loads of professional subscribers who either get the news bundled with their terminal subscription or pay for it separately. I get your general point but Bloomberg is not the best example of a medium sized publication that needs this.
No, but it would if hostilities escalated. Taking Saudi production offline would spike oil prices. Dramatically.
That would prompt political change, in the same way the OPEC crisis in the 70s did. At that point, the well-positioned (e.g. cities with public transit and electric car manufacturers) will prosper while those with their heads in the sand (e.g. communities dependent on cars for cheap transport and ICE-only manufacturers) will face a quick reckoning.