3 ms·

Great job! It's nice to see someone being proactive rather than simply complaining. It's also good to see nuclear power included in your list. The fact is tha

Great job! It's nice to see someone being proactive rather than simply complaining. It's also good to see nuclear power included in your list. The fact is that if energy technology is developed as it should be, market forces will lessen CO2 emissions, and nobody will have to "sacrifice" anything.

akiselev 10y ago
We're well past the point where nobody will have to sacrifice, regardless of how energy technology and markets develop in the future. Without anything short of international scale geoengineering projects (aka a miracle), sea levels will rise at least several inches over the next century, which translates to several extra feet during storms and surges. Already cities like Miami are seeing the consequences and most of the people living in vulnerable regions will not have the capital or infrastructure to easily move inland. Meanwhile, agricultural industries like in Italy and France have already begun to move northward, which will disrupt food supplies for hundreds of millions of people. There is strong evidence that this disruption has already begun to happen in the Middle East, except at a larger scale than the desertification of the Fertile Crescent or any other agricultural shock in recorded civilization. Slowing down our CO2 output will give millions of people more time to adapt to a changing environment but lets not kid ourselves. We're decades past the point of no return and mitigating the effects of climate change on our societies will soon become just as important as reducing our GHG output.
- Recurecur 10y ago
  I think our definition of "sacrifice" is different. I'm referring to a systemic drag on the standard of living going forward, due to reduced energy availability. Abundant, cheap energy is crucial for the best outcome going forward. I concur that international scale geoengineering will be required if the worse of the current estimates for CO2 induced warming are correct. So, we had best proactively prepare for that, just in case. As to current sea level rise and other climate change related effects, it's actually currently impossible to definitively separate the human signal from natural variability. We'll know more over time, of course. It'll be interesting to see if the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum will do anything to lower global temperatures on decadal timescales.

akiselev 10y ago

We're well past the point where nobody will have to sacrifice, regardless of how energy technology and markets develop in the future. Without anything short of international scale geoengineering projects (aka a miracle), sea levels will rise at least several inches over the next century, which translates to several extra feet during storms and surges. Already cities like Miami are seeing the consequences and most of the people living in vulnerable regions will not have the capital or infrastructure to easily move inland. Meanwhile, agricultural industries like in Italy and France have already begun to move northward, which will disrupt food supplies for hundreds of millions of people. There is strong evidence that this disruption has already begun to happen in the Middle East, except at a larger scale than the desertification of the Fertile Crescent or any other agricultural shock in recorded civilization. Slowing down our CO2 output will give millions of people more time to adapt to a changing environment but lets not kid ourselves. We're decades past the point of no return and mitigating the effects of climate change on our societies will soon become just as important as reducing our GHG output.

Recurecur 10y ago
I think our definition of "sacrifice" is different. I'm referring to a systemic drag on the standard of living going forward, due to reduced energy availability. Abundant, cheap energy is crucial for the best outcome going forward. I concur that international scale geoengineering will be required if the worse of the current estimates for CO2 induced warming are correct. So, we had best proactively prepare for that, just in case. As to current sea level rise and other climate change related effects, it's actually currently impossible to definitively separate the human signal from natural variability. We'll know more over time, of course. It'll be interesting to see if the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum will do anything to lower global temperatures on decadal timescales.