3 ms·

* the inexorable slide into worldwide famine, war and anarchy* The projections for increased CO2 emissions and thus warming are predicated on global increases

* the inexorable slide into worldwide famine, war and anarchy* The projections for increased CO2 emissions and thus warming are predicated on global increases in GDP, because greater consumption correlates to greater emissions. Thus, we should expect that famine will not be the result of climate change, at least within any foreseeable range of change. Falling into famine would dramatically decrease GDPs, and thus forestall climate change. It seems people fail to realize this connection. The factors creating the problem are symptoms of overall prosperity. I suppose it's possible for things to go non-linear and mess up that relationship. Perhaps we start to rely more on energy sources that are even dirtier (maybe people burn wood to economize, or misguided environmental regulations won't allow for cleaner natural gas to replace increasingly-dirty coal). Or, as I mentioned above, maybe some threshold is crossed where agriculture suddenly requires vastly greater energy input per calorie harvested. But barring very unlikely events like that, climate change will happen because we're ever more prosperous.

mikeash 10y ago
I think the problem with your idea is that there's huge lag in the system. Even if all human CO2 production ceased today, there would still be huge changes for decades to come. A global catastrophe due to climate change would eventually put a stop to further climate change, but by then it'll be a little too late. It's a bit like arguing that you can't die from jumping off a bridge, because then you wouldn't be alive to make the jump. It misses the important temporal relationships.
- seiferteric 10y ago
  Not only that, but it's cumulative, all the CO2 from the past century+ is not going away very fast.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Right, that's a big part of the lag. If climate change causes civilization to collapse, it'll still take decades or centuries for the built-up CO2 to drop back to normal levels. Plus the fact that emissions won't stop right away just because a bunch of people start starving.
spdustin 10y ago
You seem to be overlooking the part of those predictions that deal with the societal effects that the forced migration of entire cultures would likely entail when those groups try to ensure their own survival as they leave behind their homelands because their land is under water / no longer arable / too hot / too cold. War.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  Not at all. If things ever got to the point of forced migrations, that migration would necessarily entail a plunge in their GDP, thus at least slowing the effect. (The other replies to my GP point out a delay in the feedback loop. I'm still thinking on that part.)

mikeash 10y ago

I think the problem with your idea is that there's huge lag in the system. Even if all human CO2 production ceased today, there would still be huge changes for decades to come. A global catastrophe due to climate change would eventually put a stop to further climate change, but by then it'll be a little too late. It's a bit like arguing that you can't die from jumping off a bridge, because then you wouldn't be alive to make the jump. It misses the important temporal relationships.

seiferteric 10y ago
Not only that, but it's cumulative, all the CO2 from the past century+ is not going away very fast.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Right, that's a big part of the lag. If climate change causes civilization to collapse, it'll still take decades or centuries for the built-up CO2 to drop back to normal levels. Plus the fact that emissions won't stop right away just because a bunch of people start starving.

spdustin 10y ago

You seem to be overlooking the part of those predictions that deal with the societal effects that the forced migration of entire cultures would likely entail when those groups try to ensure their own survival as they leave behind their homelands because their land is under water / no longer arable / too hot / too cold. War.

CWuestefeld 10y ago
Not at all. If things ever got to the point of forced migrations, that migration would necessarily entail a plunge in their GDP, thus at least slowing the effect. (The other replies to my GP point out a delay in the feedback loop. I'm still thinking on that part.)