4 ms·
Until now, species losses have been due to factors 1,2,3. But climate change does threaten to greatly accelerate the rate of species collapse, perhaps unstoppa
by kafkaesq 11y ago
Until now, species losses have been due to factors 1,2,3. But climate change does threaten to greatly accelerate the rate of species collapse, perhaps unstoppably so, in the coming decades and centuries.
So you're giving Exxon (and the fossil fuel industry generally) a hell of a break, simply because thus far, we've barely been able to see the effects of climate change.
- snowwrestler 11y ago> But climate change does threaten to greatly accelerate the rate of species collapse, perhaps unstoppably so, in the coming decades and centuries. What is the evidence for this? For example I'm not aware of any correlation between the historical records of warming periods and historical records of mass extinctions. There is no reason that warmer temperatures or higher levels of CO2 should be bad for life in general. As cold areas shrink, populations of species adapted to cold habitats will suffer, but warm habitat species populations would expand. I'm not trying to take away from the reality or seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, or give Exxon a pass. Just because something is real and is bad in certain ways, that does not mean it threatens all of life on Earth, which is how I interpret the concept of "unstoppable" species collapse.