Combating climate change is a lost cause. Perhaps focus should shift to adaptation. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15019368
I am pointing out some of my individual thoughts here, so feel free to disagree.

I certainly believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for it. I think the science on this is also sufficiently thorough.

There is a lot of talk about the need to reverse this trend. Efforts to do so are worthwhile, but I have no optimism that such attempts will be successful.

The reality is things are going to continue as they are. Talk is cheap. We are going to continue to burn fossil fuels, at an increasing rate. The feedback loops like melting ice begetting more ice melting, and of California fires being more intense because of heat and drought, leading to the burning of more and more trees, and hence the release of more and more carbon (hence perpetuating the cycle), is going to continue.

We humans are not going to change.

Again, I don't want to say it isn't worth trying; I don't want to say that changing our ways is not something worth fighting for.

Pragmatically, I don't see us changing our ways. I see us humans continuing to shit in our nest, despite the foreseeable (and already somewhat present) catastrophic results.

So, the scientific predictions of what is coming can (and typically are) used as warnings of how things will be if we don't change.

Perhaps they had ought to be looked at as projections of what is indeed to come, and focus put more heavily on how to adapt to the changes.

It's possible that such a focus could even have mitigating effects. I don't think we can prevent the changing of the climate. We can proactively look for ways that we may successfully adapt. In the process, we may even come up with novel ways of preventing our living spaces from being true toxic waste dumps, which also seems to be the way things are heading.
#15019485
Crantag wrote:
I certainly believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for it. I think the science on this is also sufficiently thorough.


IF it were "sufficiently thorough," there could not possibly be thousands of scholarly papers, hundreds of books and videos and lectures disputing what you call "sufficiently thorough."

There is a lot of talk about the need to reverse this trend. Efforts to do so are worthwhile, but I have no optimism that such attempts will be successful.


"Efforts are worthwhile" but they will not "be successful." By the way, those "efforts" have already cost trillions of dollars which might have been spent for more worthwhile causes.

Talk is cheap.

Indeed.

I see us humans continuing to shit in our nest, despite the foreseeable (and already somewhat present) catastrophic results.


As in 22,000 Eco-Hypocrites flying to the latest European Climate Change conference....burning hundreds of thousands of that nasty, toxic fossil fuel in the process.....

So, the scientific predictions of what is coming can (and typically are) used as warnings of how things will be if we don't change.


Change is impossible, you say, but let's change anyway. "Talk is cheap."

In the process, we may even come up with novel ways of preventing our living spaces from being true toxic waste dumps, which also seems to be the way things are heading.


Carbon dioxide does not create a "true toxic dump." Not by any stretch of the Eco-Panic.

We can proactively look for ways that we may successfully adapt.


There are permanent stations at the Antarctic. We have ALREADY "successfully adapted." Africans have lived for centuries in the hottest environment on earth. THEY have ALREADY "successfully adapted" with zero technology. Your Darwinian pretensions are fatuous, otherworldly.
#15019625
AFAIK wrote:What are your thoughts on geo-engineering?

Good catch, I thought of it while typing the OP but didn't include it because it wasn't really the particular thing I was talking about.

It may have potential but also may be playing with fire, given humans' technical limitations (side effects and accidents are potentialities). It could well be worth the risk. I also don't really know enough about it.

Palmyrene's comment is also appreciated.
#15019631
I share some of your pessimism. The energy demands of the developing world, where most of the world population lives, are growing rapidly, so it will be a challenge to keep emissions constant in the next few decades. Still, I think we'll manage to avoid a disastrous increase of 5° or more.

Image

As for "geo-engineering", there are technical solutions for CO2 capturing, but to my knowledge they're all more expensive than simply producing less.
#15019637
Rugoz wrote:As for "geo-engineering", there are technical solutions for CO2 capturing, but to my knowledge they're all more expensive than simply producing less.

I guess you mean to be informative here (and hate waste like a good Protestant), but producing more CO2 and then capturing it would fit capitalism perfectly. They could even be done by the same companies.
Made in Israel

dosent matter this aid is small percent from Isra[…]

https://media1.fdncms.com/csindy/imag[…]

I've setup a charcoal grill outside that I have sm[…]

Why the national debt of the USA grew.

The level of debt doesn't matter, what matters is[…]