My understanding is that we needed to make drastic changes in the 80s and 90s to reverse what's coming our way. At this point we're completely fecked and it's only a matter of time. Things we do now aren't going to save us from the worst of it as that is already set in motion.
Yeah, ideally. Global temperature is definitely rising and we can't undo that. But what we do can still influence how much they will rise - that's what the IPCC projections scenarios are all about. But given the enormous international tardiness in really (and I mean REALLY) getting things done, you're right that we're not really deviating much from the worst scenarios in practice.
Last time I posed that question, someone tagged a known denialist and we had a 'nice' little discussion before they were perma-banned. Let's see what you're triggering this time.
I think we’re rapidly approaching the point where we will have to consider geoengineering out of necessity, despite the plethora of unknowns and irreversible consequences that that implies. The feedback loops we‘re triggering in the Arctic will be the final nail in the coffin.
Maybe? It will definitely make it worse, probably a lot worse, but right now it doesn't look like we can actually go full Venus or something like that. Let's hope so, anyway.
The last nail in the coffin for the hopes of achieving our carbon reduction targets, not all life on earth - if that’s what you mean by Venus.
Oh yeah, in that case I very much agree. I just sometimes feel like it needs saying that we're very unlikely to make the Earth uninhabitable, which feels like a low bar.
Yeah - those (less ice > less reflection of sunlight > more warming > less ice > etc.), and also in the subarctic (permafrost thaws > trapped methane released > more warming > more permafrost thaw > etc) really make it hard to put this genie back into its bottle...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bitcoins to me seem like space tourism. Fabulously polluting and I have yet to discover a single real value-add for the world or humanity. But let's keep doing it for the sake of... erm... well, money?
Oh, that's just because you don't have 13.8 million Bitcoin.
I did write 'humanity', not 'individual humans in the short-term until their home is destroyed through some weather event that has become more frequent or otherwise worse due to climate change'.
How to stop it though...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oh, I know. Obviously if you had 13.8 million Bitcoin you'd be able to help humanity by buying up all the world's corporations' stock and getting all the world's armies on your payroll. And that's just for starters.I did write 'humanity', not 'individual humans in the short-term until their home is destroyed through some weather event that has become more frequent or otherwise worse due to climate change'.
The Supreme Court has an incredible amount of power in the US. That's even reflected in something like abortion, which is a legislative issue in almost every other country, not judicial. It all comes back to the extreme reverence for the constitution, I suppose. In Norway you only on the rarest of occasions have the supreme court making decisions on something being or not being constitutional, and I am pretty sure they would never take up the sorts of cases that the American supreme court hears.
That is certainly the most likely outcome. But you can be sure that it will be spun to sound like a success.
Why is that do you think?
I think its a push back against the American driven existing world order
That is a very good point.
Thank you for your response.
It’s not gonna work. Too much in the way of squabbling will be the end of a way of life for many living in future numerous and vast danger zones. It’s inevitable. Of course the Earth will be just fine although wildlife and habitats will be fecked for who knows. But then again the Earth could be be covered in mile of tar on it’s surface and sooner or later it will revive. It’s got billions of years left and doesn’t need us. We need it and we fecked it up for ourselves not the Earth.
It may well not. I accept that. But we have to maintain optimism that some progress will be made.
A slightly different angle, but as I think I've said before, I think insurance companies and banks will play a big role in this. They'll stop insuring a lot of stuff because they don't want to pay for easily predictable damages - like houses flooded because their area has become much more susceptible to flash floods following those new huge and sudden summer downpours. That will hit people hard (you can't sell a house that can't be insured, add the buyer can't get a mortgage), prompting governments into action, and so on.
I'd like to think that too but aren't we supposed to be well into in the last five minutes to midnight, on the 'end of the world clock'... and there is no 'Fergie time' to add on
Less than 100 seconds away from midnight…I'd like to think that too but aren't we supposed to be well into in the last five minutes to midnight, on the 'end of the world clock'... and there is no 'Fergie time' to add on
There is of course that aspect.
Yeah, the 'won't be quick' is the obvious downside. Businesses and people don't transition that quickly. We need governments for the urgency, but they're not acting. So we need people and businesses to push them. But they don't transition that quickly by themselves. And so the circle goes.
Exactly. I am hopeful that governments will put into place sufficient policies to bridge the gap between the potential +2.7C and the required not greater than 1.5C. increase.
China is very much on two different paths though, on one hand they're converting to greener technologies at a far quicker pace than the west. On the other side they still have many areas and millions in poverty that require industrialisation quickly and cheaply.
We used to do Export for American brands, and boy for all their big quantity order they actually pay pittance. Maybe if they start paying more we can be more environmentally conscious. It's easy to make an environmentally friendly factory, doing so while maintaining profit is another.
All perfectly true.
They are committed to that already it's just on a different timeline because they're not a completely service based economy like we are. They've invested far more than the EU for instance in solar and wind and they do more ecological grants to the third world than anyone else too.
If what you say is true, then the world is going to ''hell in a hand cart' ...China included!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
