121–130 of 1001 posts
Climate change is bad. Govt are not doing anything. But has any model taken into consideration about covid deaths?
Covid put a minuscule dent into the carbon emmision, but we are basically back to normal. Death don't have a great effect as the general carbon production (oil, coal, gas) are still rising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we should do neither. Impose a co2 emissions tax and let the market figure it out.
A carbon tax that would be high enough to force changes quickly enough would also be devastating for the poorer segment of the population and hence very hard to pass in a democracy. I mixture of a carbon price and other measures can be easier to sell to the voters.
Most poorer people would get money in such a system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems fairly obvious that climate change is going to be solved before the bigger existential risks we face, which are for the most part unknowable or largely ignored. There are a lot of people working on climate change now, it's well established in the public's mind, and there are many incentives in place to accelerate solutions.
It also seems companies are moving faster than politics. E.g. deprecating ICEs by 2030/35, without any policies forcing them. The mere discussion about increasing CO2 prices triggered coal power plant operators to think about phasing those put before any policy enforced coal exit. The pessimist in me will only believe any of that, and any positive impact, once it happened. Not sooner.
Thats not a measure to help, thats a fake measure to stop goverments from actually doing something effective.
Seinfeld was correct, the only warning we are afraid of is "dry clean only".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqTanhErR_E
> Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' What almost alarms me more than the thought of a climate apocalypse is that I don't think this (a UN report) is going to have any effect on the opinions of 40% of the public who see climate change as some kind of job destroying conspiracy. Nothing short of Florida disappearing under the sea is going to make any difference, perhaps we (as a species) don't deserv…
It seems fairly obvious that climate change is going to be solved before the bigger existential risks we face, which are for the most part unknowable or largely ignored. There are a lot of people working on climate change now, it's well established in the public's mind, and there are many incentives in place to accelerate solutions.
Basically, to stop climate change in the next decade (which is already far too late to stop catastrophic effects, which are already beginning and will only get worse) we must significantly reduce the global economy. There is simply no way to keep growing growing the economy without also growing CO2 emissions in the near future.
And of course, global economic recession is not going to be acceptable, in an economic system predicated entirely on eternal growth (where "growing too slow" is already considered unacceptable). So, climate change action will be slow, small, and entirely too little to avoid the most catastrophic scenarios.
Better to see 10 more years of economic growth before a massive collapse, instead of 20-40 years of slow economic shrinking to a more manageable, carbon neutral world, right?
> Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity' What almost alarms me more than the thought of a climate apocalypse is that I don't think this (a UN report) is going to have any effect on the opinions of 40% of the public who see climate change as some kind of job destroying conspiracy. Nothing short of Florida disappearing under the sea is going to make any difference, perhaps we (as a species) don't deserv…
> This pact aims to keep the rise in global temperatures well below 2C this century and to pursue efforts to keep it under 1.5C. It seems to me that continuing to communicate just the average temperature increase is a missed opportunity to engage with a greater portion of the population. 1.5 or 2 degrees do not seem like much, but once one understands that’s an average made out of much bigger positive and negative sw…
Also people need to be presented with the consequences. I still know a lot of people who genuinely believe it means slightly warmer summers. They think I'm a crazy person when I mention the never-ending storms and lack of drinking water. Also just dropping this link here as I remember watching it at the time and thinking isn't it great we're not there yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXRaTnKDXA
What most people do not do while saying this statement is taking the context of the change in average temperatures around the world. What should be shown are graphics like this XKCD [1], which puts in perspective the average global temperatures in past 22,000 years. (spoiler: the last time Earth's average global temperature was 4 degrees below the average global temperature during the 1970s, the Earth was covered in sheets of ice). This is where we have well and truly allowed climate change deniers to take over and spread misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all but inevitable at this stage. The same is true for New York - any city at or only slightly above sea level is a foregone conclusion. Fluid dynamics don't care about your politics. If it helps, going by elevation maps Disney World should survive with a lot of weather hardening!
I would imagine dyke schemes will be a solution for the mega metropolises. It's the poorer ones that will disappear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 40% of the public who see climate change as some kind of job destroying conspiracy. These people are not the ones who need to take action, so who cares? Policy makers are the ones who need to act, and they are already well aware for most of the consequences of global warming. The issue is that a lot of big corporations (The ones which really control police makers) are not going to be advantaged by transforming the…
Policy makers who rely on the ignorant 40%’s vote to stay in a job aren’t going to risk their salary and pension.