[late]

"Extreme events such as these signal a worrying trend. In the coming decades, as temperatures continue to climb, seemingly isolated climate disasters will begin to overlap, their impacts becoming more than additive. Scientists expect to see more intense tropical cyclones and more heat waves. Each disaster could compound the damage of the next, with less and less time for people to recover in between.

These new risks to the planet should challenge the conventional wisdom on fighting climate change. In the United States and other wealthy countries, efforts to adapt to global warming have always played second fiddle to efforts to reduce carbon emissions. This emphasis is understandable, since if greenhouse gas emissions are not restrained, successfully adapting to climate change will be impossible for most of humanity: countries will suffer major damage, and lives will be lost. Adaptation has also seemed less attractive because it involves no global silver bullets. But policymakers no longer have the luxury of downgrading adaptation, because climate change’s devastating effects are no longer in the future; they are occurring now.

When extreme events strike the same location more frequently, the confluence can be more devastating than the sum of its parts. Like heat waves, consecutive hurricanes of this magnitude can exacerbate misery. The link in this case was not necessarily geographic or temporal. Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico 26 days after and over 2,000 miles away from Hurricane Harvey’s strike on Texas. But these two events connected at a distance. The damage in Puerto Rico was made worse because the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency had exhausted its financial and personnel resources on the previous two storms, especially Harvey.

The bottom line is that few if any countries are sufficiently prepared to deal with what is in store. A yawning gap has opened up between what they know about the risks of climate change and what they are doing to reduce them. In the riskier new era of climate change, the longer countries take to close that gap, the more painful and deadly the outcomes."

You knew this was coming.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-10-13/world-burns?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=weekend_read&utm_content=20230610&utm_campaign=NEWS_FA%20Weekend_061023_As%20the%20World%20Burns&utm_term=FA%20Weekend%20Read-012320

[Godstud]

Climate change is real. It's going to affect everyone.

We cannot, however make it seem as though we are doomed and can't do anything about it. This simply shuts down conversation or makes it appear as it's hopeless, so there's no point in trying to change.

"The Sky is Falling" model is not realistic and we're finding that the Earth recovers far faster from problems that previously thought.

I applaud any, and all, attempts to mitigate climate change. We have to understand, that things such as solar, wind, electric, come with costs, as well, and so aren't solutions, but improvements. We can't throw away clean technologies simply because of public perceptions(eg. Nuclear), and we have to admit the limitations of wind and solar.

Electric cars have their own "carbon footprint" and it's not much better than a small fuel efficient car. My small 2004 Echo had a carbon footprint on par with a hybrid.

[late]

"The Sky is Falling" model is not realistic

Not hard to tell when people are on the hunt for an excuse..

[Godstud]

Realistic climate change models are needed that don't make it appear as though the world is dying.

We need to be realistic about it, and work towards solutions. Climate change activists are always parading around, throwing soup on Van Gogh, and other silly things, but don't do anything to present solutions.

I am concerned about climate change, and we need to all work together to mitigate it. We cannot do this if we dissuade people from helping with Apocalypse and Doomsday hyperbolic rhetoric.

[Pants-of-dog]

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show insignificant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the news show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when their own eyes show significant problems.

So I doubt the problem is that climate models overstate the problem. In fact, the science says the opposite: most models underestimate the effects.

[late]

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show insignificant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the news show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when their own eyes show significant problems.

So I doubt the problem is that climate models overstate the problem. In fact, the science says the opposite: most models underestimate the effects.

Big Oil propaganda has been saying things like unrealistic since they had to give up on denialism.

The sad truth is people love their subsidies, and they don't want to lose their freebie..

[Godstud]

See?

Lots of bitching about climate change but neither you @Pants-of-dog or @late want to talk about solutions.

Most people are on board and understand that climate change is real, and that we have to make steps in the right direction. We need to make doing the right thing attractive to everyone, not just activists.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show insignificant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the news show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when their own eyes show significant problems.

So I doubt the problem is that climate models overstate the problem. In fact, the science says the opposite: most models underestimate the effects.

No solutions. This what I am talking about. It's just complaining about the problem, and not trying to solve it.

[Potemkin]

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the models show insignificant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when the news show significant problems.

Humans do nothing about climate change when their own eyes show significant problems.

So I doubt the problem is that climate models overstate the problem. In fact, the science says the opposite: most models underestimate the effects.

Humans are what they are, and there’s no point complaining about it. You have to work with what you’ve got, @Pants-of-dog. How do you induce them to do what you want them to do…?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud asks for solutions.

Sure.

Nationalize the top 100 polluting companies.

In return for not charging the former owners with crimes, the state can withhold payment for the assets.

These assets can then be used to finance and (literally) power a radical transition towards a more sustainable future.

———————-

@Potemkin

There seems to be no leverage to manipulate either the powers that be or the general public to do something about it.

So if you are going to suggest we do it by force, I am not entirely against such discussion.

[Godstud]

Nationalize the top 100 polluting companies.

Right... so you propose Totalitarian Socialism as a solution to climate change, but then have a vague reference to curing it with no concrete solutions.

This is why normal rational and intelligent people don't listen to you. This is how you push your progressive ideologies and why people are averse to it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Right... so you propose Totalitarian Socialism as a solution to climate change.

This is why normal rational and intelligent people don't listen to you.

All sorts of people do not listen to me. More importantly, they do not listen to climate scientists.

I am honest in that I think our (and by “our”, I mean nothing less than all of humanity) collective right to a clean and safe environment outweighs the right of some wealthy people to make billions off tax subsidized pollution.

Do you disagree with that?

[Godstud]

All sorts of people do not listen to me. More importantly, they do not listen to climate scientists.

And rightly so, as the science is not definitive. Climate science is NEW. Some scientists claimed the world ended a decade ago. Some say this is going to take a long time to do and even with changes to renewables we are looking at not solving it by the next century. Some say it might never end, because the Earth is resilient.

I am honest in that I think our (and by “our”, I mean nothing less than all of humanity) collective right to a clean and safe environment outweighs the right of some wealthy people to make billions off tax subsidized pollution.

Your opinion is noted, but many billionaires are now making money off of renewables and "Green solutions". Some are driving forces for change. You might be honest in your belief, but that doesn't mean that others are going to agree with your radical take on it, that these people be robbed and punished for supposed crimes against humanity, all because you feel that they aren't doing enough?

Should they also use a guillotine?

[Pants-of-dog]

And rightly so, as the science is not definitive. Climate science is NEW. Some scientists claimed the world ended a decade ago. Some say this is going to take a long time to do and even with changes to renewables we are looking at not solving it by the next century. Some say it might never end, because the Earth is resilient.

No, the science is pretty definitive. There is not really much vagueness about it. And climate science is at least 150 years old.

But still, there has been very little change, and there seems to be very little hope of meeting commitments.

Your opinion is noted, but many billionaires are now making money off of renewables and "Green solutions". Some are driving forces for change. You might be honest in your belief, but that doesn't mean that others are going to agree with your radical take on it, that these people be robbed and punished for supposed crimes against humanity, all because you feel that they aren't doing enough?

Should they also use a guillotine?

So you do not disagree that it is a viable solution.

But feel free to provide a clear example of capitalism and capitalist countries making significant strides towards addressing climate change.

Until then, a guillotine does seem eco-friendly.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Potemkin

There seems to be no leverage to manipulate either the powers that be or the general public to do something about it.

So if you are going to suggest we do it by force, I am not entirely against such discussion.

Spoken like a true communist.

I think changes are coming pretty quickly on some regards. Lots of progress and demand for EV's, and solar will come. I see a lot of electric equipment at Home Depot that used to be gas-powered, like lawn-mowers etc. But unfortunately changing the entire technological infrastructure takes decades, which is not ideal. As more bad climate-influenced events occur I think the progress will occur faster and faster.

[Unthinking Majority]

Governments did not cause climate change, and they will not be the ones to solve it. It will be solved by technology companies and consumers, same as the ones who caused it. Governments can provide some incentives to push them all along a little faster.

[Pants-of-dog]

Spoken like a true communist.

Thank you.

I think changes are coming pretty quickly on some regards. Lots of progress and demand for EV's, and solar will come. I see a lot of electric equipment at Home Depot that used to be gas-powered, like lawn-mowers etc. But unfortunately changing the entire technological infrastructure takes decades, which is not ideal. As more bad climate-influenced events occur I think the progress will occur faster and faster.

Governments did not cause climate change, and they will not be the ones to solve it. It will be solved by technology companies and consumers, same as the ones who caused it. Governments can provide some incentives to push them all along a little faster.

Again, feel free to provide a clear example of capitalism and capitalist countries making significant strides towards addressing climate change.

[Godstud]

Clear examples? Electric cars and solar panels. Both are being pushed by the free market, and NOT governments.

Communism is pushing fuck all. In fact, some of the worst countries for pollution are the Communist countries you fawn over.

[Unthinking Majority]

Again, feel free to provide a clear example of capitalism and capitalist countries making significant strides towards addressing climate change.

EVs, hybrids, solar technology, the EV type products like lawnmowers, chainsaws etc I told you about. Demand for EVs is gaining a lot of steam, Tesla is a very popular brand...until Elon started tweeting. A lot of regular people have invested into his companies because they believe in his green vision, he's the richest man in the world largely because of these investments into our future, not really about his profitability at the moment. But every car company will have EVs soon if not already.

A lot of people also have done things like abandon disposable water bottles and carry a refillable metal/glass water container.

More needs to be done but its a start and seems to be gaining momentum as the tech gets better and cheaper for use.

[MadMonk]

And rightly so, as the science is not definitive. Climate science is NEW. Some scientists claimed the world ended a decade ago. Some say this is going to take a long time to do and even with changes to renewables we are looking at not solving it by the next century. Some say it might never end, because the Earth is resilient.

Our planet is very resilient and will keep going no matter what we do. Our species is quite resilient and highly adaptable. The changing climate is going to have a devastating effect on many places. Some land is not going to be livable, we will lose our ability to grow as much food as we are used to and there will be shortages of clean drinking water, all of which has already started in places like Pakistan. These developments are going to fuel conflicts and more migration, the only question becomes how great of a devastation we are going to witness. I'll likely see 2055-2065, so I might miss it when it gets really bad.

I agree that alarmist hysteria has damaged the credibility of the Climate Crusade. How does one face apathy without resorting to a message of fear? The brutal truth is that it has to get worse before it gets any better. We have begun, but what is needed is a complete overhaul of our way of life and how we structure human societies. And that is not going to happen before millions or even billions are dead.

[late]

See?

Lots of bitching about climate change but neither you @Pants-of-dog or @late want to talk about solutions.

I have, many times.

I was going to start this as a new thread:

"The economist Kate Raworth believes she has a solution. It is possible, she argues, to design an economy that allows humans and the environment to thrive. Doing so will mean rejecting much of what defined 20th-century economics. This is the essential premise of her only book, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist, which became a surprise hit when it was published in 2017. The book, which has been translated into 21 languages, brings to mind a charismatic professor dispensing heterodox wisdom to a roomful of students. “Citizens of 2050 are being taught an economic mindset that is rooted in the textbooks of 1950, which in turn are rooted in the theories of 1850,” Raworth writes. By exposing the flaws in these old theories, such as the idea that economic growth will massively reduce inequality, or that humans are merely self-interested individuals, Raworth wants to show how our thinking has been constrained by economic concepts that are fundamentally unsuited to the great challenges of this century."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/the-planets-economist-has-kate-raworth-found-a-model-for-sustainable-living?utm_source=pocket-newtab