I guess governments will just skip the prevention step when they realize their own inaction made that impossible and just try to find ways to adapt to the inevitable changes instead. There's pretty much no way, purely for political/human reasons, that keeping the temperatures below 2 or even 3 degrees seems feasible at that point, so humanity will just have to deal with it and adapt over the next century. Shame about the planet and the natural ecosystem, though.
IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
11–20 of 80 posts
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#12Nothing is more important than getting our reaction to climate change right. It’s so frustrating that so few genuinely helpful companies are emerging out of our ecosystem. We can and must do better. And quickly.
Even in the worst case scenario, global warming will not annihilate the human species. AI, nanotechnology, weaponized bioweapons, nuclear war, asteroid impacts, or alien contact could all potentially wipe out humanity.
Probably unlikely that those will wipe out humanity, at least we don't have any concrete evidence or examples of them (e.g. we have't built an AI that can do much yet, we don't have nanotech that will self replicate and kill us all, aliens have yet to show up etc.). Bioweapons seems unlikely to end humanity as someone will win the war, and personally I think MAD prevents widespread use.
The only thing in your list that does make sense is an asteroid impact, which we don't have much say over.
With climate change we know a) it's happening, b) it's going to affect us in some pretty major ways and c) we can do something about it.
None of those hold true for your points.
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#13The only reason it's controversial is because all prior reports have been retouched by lobbyist and politicians who wanted to play down the effort.
Hope for the best and prepare for the worst, but worst increasingly looks like an extinction-level oceanic anoxia event.
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#14Nothing is more important than getting our reaction to climate change right. It’s so frustrating that so few genuinely helpful companies are emerging out of our ecosystem. We can and must do better. And quickly.
> so few genuinely helpful companies are emerging out of our ecosystem. What would a genuinely helpful company look like? Some examples I can think of: - New materials development (e.g. plastic that takes 30% less carbon to create) - New carbon-reduced operation pipelines (e.g. a process for manufacturing cars at 30% less carbon) - A consultancy that focuses on energy reduction across business verticals - ... What el…
Some of those exist, but the problem is externality: so long as the high carbon option is more profitable than the low carbon one, we have a problem.
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#15It always seems odd to me that people still plan their lives as though the world fifty years from now will be basically the same as now. I hope they're right, to be honest. But we're talking 3+c warming (5.4F) and that could be horrific. I guess it's nice if you want a winery in Norway but that's small comfort.
> It always seems odd to me that people still plan their lives as though the world fifty years from now will be basically the same as now
Even planning for anything 10 years in the future is a daunting task. For any prognosis there are a dozen more claiming different results or different trends with different outcomes. It's an information flood that does not let you make a definite judgement since it's overwhelming, and even when you try to base a decision on scientific evidence, because there's usually a "model", the certainty of the outcome "depends" (on any number of "variables").
What do? Make a conversative projection on what things are like today, and a plan based on that.
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#16I still frequently encounter people who consider the whole thing either a conspiracy or an outright lie, a way to bring America down, or some sort of left-wing class war in the UK, or all sorts of other bizarre things.
I even encountered one commenter recently who claimed that we fundamentally misunderstand the action of gasses in a a gravity field, and he was going to single-handedly prove it all wrong (and invent a source of free energy at the same time).
With this, and the long-term nature of the problem meaning that the can can always be kicked just a little further down the road, I'm not surprised that little gets achieved.
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#17A key factor contributing to climate change is the number of people weighted by energy consumption.
Should governments in rich countries encourage people to have fewer kids or otherwise constrain their life choices in various other ways? This goes against liberal values. What do most progressives think?
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#18It always seems odd to me that people still plan their lives as though the world fifty years from now will be basically the same as now. I hope they're right, to be honest. But we're talking 3+c warming (5.4F) and that could be horrific. I guess it's nice if you want a winery in Norway but that's small comfort.
> It always seems odd to me that people still plan their lives as though the world fifty years from now will be basically the same as now Even planning for anything 10 years in the future is a daunting task. For any prognosis there are a dozen more claiming different results or different trends with different outcomes. It's an information flood that does not let you make a definite judgement since it's overwhelming,…
You also have to adjust for the fact that most of what climate scientists publish is already conservative. Get them talking one-to-one and their predictions for the next decades are dire.
Me, I take a pessimistic view - I don’t think you have to have a large percentage change in, say, crop production, or storm damage rebuilding costs, for economies to feel the effect - prices rise, labour is diverted from growth to maintenance, and adaptations are ultimately made, but in the intervening period expense has been incurrred, and by now the climate has warmed further. The costs end up growing astronomically, and at what point do governments fail due to popular discontent, at what point do further governments collapse and even wars start due to resource cost rises and the need for popular distraction, and mass migration caused by revolution and war nearby?
I’ve put my money where my mouth is - I’ve become itinerant, while I scope out where on earth to live this out - somewhere quiet, and remote, and self-sufficient, that hasn’t yet seen ecological disaster and might escape the worst of climate change due to geography. Sadly, everywhere I’ve been in the past few years, across all continents and hemispheres, even when these places as yet appear verdant and untouched, are feeling the wrath of a changing climate, and human-wrought ecological destruction, from drought to flood, from aquifer pollution to overfarming and desertification, and vast agricultural monoculture, highly vulnerable to moving growing zones and viable climates for pests.
I’d love to be able to do something to prevent this - I recycle, I don’t buy much, I travel overland wherever possible - but I fear we’re too far gone.
What humanity and our civilisation will be in 20 or 30 years I don’t know, but I fear it’ll be unrecognisable and almost unimaginable to us, even now.
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#19I guess I'll be investing in building houses on Antarctica or something. Oh wait, it will still be dark there the majority of the winter... hmm...
Re: IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
#20A key factor contributing to climate change is the number of people weighted by energy consumption. Should governments in rich countries encourage people to have fewer kids or otherwise constrain their life choices in various other ways? This goes against liberal values. What do most progressives think?
That's not a causal relationship.