6 ms·

Assuming we need to worry about climate change in the short term, what are the best mitigations on individual level? What can a person do to prepare for climate

by a_imho 9y ago

Assuming we need to worry about climate change in the short term, what are the best mitigations on individual level? What can a person do to prepare for climate change? Move somewhere less affected? Hoard money/resources?

fsloth 9y ago
"What can a person do to prepare for climate change?" If global climate goes haywire, I would guess grain prices are first to go up, leading to instability in the poorest areas (qualitatively, the price of food seems to be related to regional instability). On the short term I would guess the best guess is to have enough money to buy food, and live somewhere where there are strong governments that will mitigate problems to their constituencies on the short term (USA, Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc) If this starts to go badly, that is.
- ensiferum 9y ago
  You mean when
  - fsloth 9y ago
    No, it's still if. Climate scientists are not seers. It's an if with bloody lot of concerning data points and estimates. If should be good enough to take action. Currently we are running a global empirical experiment on what happens when we increase CO2 in the atmoshpere, and no one has any conclusive answer what will actually happen, given that Earht's weather is a highly complex dynamical system. Will the clathrate gun explode? What happens then? Who knows! Roll the dice, enjoy the show. Yeah, when we get to when it's too late.
peteretep 9y ago
Vote
rmetzler 9y ago
Walk or bike to your workplace instead of taking the car. Use public transportation. Oh, sorry, I misread what you asked about. You don't want to do something against climate change, you just want to mitigate the effects on you. Best thing is to avoid all those people who will migrate because it doesn't rain anymore in their place so they have to starve because of bad harvests.
- a_imho 9y ago
  You don't want to do something against climate change, you just want to mitigate the effects on you. I've might sounded selfish. Obviously reducing footprint is important, but there are several other factors one can't control. I'm interested in what is the best course of action if push comes to show.
  - pault 9y ago
    Surround yourself with good and trustworthy people and be good and trustworthy yourself. If the worst case scenario becomes real you will probably not want to be around for it anyway and if you do manage to survive, it won't be alone.
- fsloth 9y ago
  You presume a person does not already do those things. Doing the right thing now, and preparing for the worst just in case are not mutually exclusive (a smart person can have more than one plan going at a time).
ThomPete 9y ago
Create a company that deals with some of the consequences. Before you do that though, I would urge you to spend some more time looking into what people are saying on both sides. I did and it made me realize that there is a certain kind of "climate alarmist" fraction of the environmental movement that's a far cry from the more balances actual views and that they, unfortunately, are boosted by the media quite a lot probably because media likes catastrophes. 3 things I learned which made it click for me. 1) The so-called "climate deniers" aren't denying there is climate change, they aren't even denying humans affect the climate some degree. What they say is that climate is always changing and that the degree to which humans are affecting the climate isn't as clear as the most alarmist would like you to believe. 2) The 97% consensus is extremely misleading and you will find that the questions asked put the so-called climate deniers into the same bucket of the consensus because of what I mentioned in one. There is however not 97% certainty with regards to how much humans affect. The IPCC numbers are all over the map and they ex have to adjust the heat down over time. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 3) You will not be able to get anyone to give you a straight answer when it comes to how much humans affect the environment and that's because there isn't any clear answers. So educate yourself then decide what to do after that.
- andygates 9y ago
  There really aren't 'both sides' to this. There's as much scientific controversy as there is over gravity or evolution. The deniers used to deny there was change ("it's cycles!"). Then they denied it was humans (it really is, attribution is getting good). They're denying it's bad ("CO2 is plant food!"); and once things get really in train, they'll be denying ever being warned by those mean old scientists.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Yes there really are and not just two but many. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest numbers from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 I don't know about you but I see a range, a wide range. It IS cycles, it's always been cycles historically and the climate is always changing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.... The discussion is not whether humans have an effect but how much. Again no certainty even closely resembling evolution. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-... But you can take the same argument and turn it against the climate alarmist. First, they said new york would be under water by now. Then, they said the temperature was rising rapidly (but they had to adjust that claim down quite dramatically) Then, they said the oceans are getting toxicated. There is no clear consensus on this. We might or might not effect the climate more or less than we think. But try and find any official number for how much humans affect the climate and you will be very dissapointed. Science is not about certainty it's about testing hypothesis. The way climate scientist teste them is by using computer models. That's nowhere close to providing us with the scientific evidence and testability of gravity. And evolution is a model, the best model we have to explain the evolution of species there is a lot of discussion inside of evolution. Trying to close down any dissent or argument simply by saying there is nothing to discuss because science, is the most anti scientific thing you can do IMO.
pulisse 9y ago
It's a collective action problem. Mitigation on an individual level isn't meaningful.
bigbugbag 9y ago
Vote with your money, a.k.a. boycott. do not support any product/service that contribute to climate change. Aim for the level of life of a regular Indian citizen, or even better Bhutanese. Invest in insulation of your home, learn survivalist skills (how to make a fire, make a shelter, grow food, treat disease, make medicine, etc.) prepare for a scenario where you have to live a nomadic on the go for a while, join a group of similar minded individual. Or if you have the required kind of budget, follow the step of the ultra rich and buy yourself a piece of land in a remote place (new zealand is hot right now) and build yourself a bunker with enough ressources to live on your own for as long as necessary. Basically you want to find a way to ride out the collapse of civilization and be equipped to rebuild afterwards.
- Caveman_Coder 9y ago
  > "...learn survivalist skills (how to make a fire, make a shelter, grow food, treat disease, make medicine, etc.)" These used to just be "normal" skills that people knew...funny how things have changed.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Exactly, today we call them survivalist skills, but really these are skills your grand parents skills had and got from their parents. IMHO it is a matter of bridging a gap that span only a couple generations. My grand parents were growing food and covering 95% of the needs for a family of 12 with only animal traction. It was a life of much less comfort and convenience but it was sustainable and mostly a happy life.
ghthor 9y ago
Reuse reuse reuse, Prefer glass over plastic and walking more are my personal ways of offsetting my footprint.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by a_imho 9y ago

fsloth 9y ago

"What can a person do to prepare for climate change?" If global climate goes haywire, I would guess grain prices are first to go up, leading to instability in the poorest areas (qualitatively, the price of food seems to be related to regional instability). On the short term I would guess the best guess is to have enough money to buy food, and live somewhere where there are strong governments that will mitigate problems to their constituencies on the short term (USA, Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc) If this starts to go badly, that is.

ensiferum 9y ago
You mean when
- fsloth 9y ago
  No, it's still if. Climate scientists are not seers. It's an if with bloody lot of concerning data points and estimates. If should be good enough to take action. Currently we are running a global empirical experiment on what happens when we increase CO2 in the atmoshpere, and no one has any conclusive answer what will actually happen, given that Earht's weather is a highly complex dynamical system. Will the clathrate gun explode? What happens then? Who knows! Roll the dice, enjoy the show. Yeah, when we get to when it's too late.

peteretep 9y ago

Vote

rmetzler 9y ago

Walk or bike to your workplace instead of taking the car. Use public transportation. Oh, sorry, I misread what you asked about. You don't want to do something against climate change, you just want to mitigate the effects on you. Best thing is to avoid all those people who will migrate because it doesn't rain anymore in their place so they have to starve because of bad harvests.

a_imho 9y ago
You don't want to do something against climate change, you just want to mitigate the effects on you. I've might sounded selfish. Obviously reducing footprint is important, but there are several other factors one can't control. I'm interested in what is the best course of action if push comes to show.
- pault 9y ago
  Surround yourself with good and trustworthy people and be good and trustworthy yourself. If the worst case scenario becomes real you will probably not want to be around for it anyway and if you do manage to survive, it won't be alone.
fsloth 9y ago
You presume a person does not already do those things. Doing the right thing now, and preparing for the worst just in case are not mutually exclusive (a smart person can have more than one plan going at a time).

ThomPete 9y ago

Create a company that deals with some of the consequences. Before you do that though, I would urge you to spend some more time looking into what people are saying on both sides. I did and it made me realize that there is a certain kind of "climate alarmist" fraction of the environmental movement that's a far cry from the more balances actual views and that they, unfortunately, are boosted by the media quite a lot probably because media likes catastrophes. 3 things I learned which made it click for me. 1) The so-called "climate deniers" aren't denying there is climate change, they aren't even denying humans affect the climate some degree. What they say is that climate is always changing and that the degree to which humans are affecting the climate isn't as clear as the most alarmist would like you to believe. 2) The 97% consensus is extremely misleading and you will find that the questions asked put the so-called climate deniers into the same bucket of the consensus because of what I mentioned in one. There is however not 97% certainty with regards to how much humans affect. The IPCC numbers are all over the map and they ex have to adjust the heat down over time. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 3) You will not be able to get anyone to give you a straight answer when it comes to how much humans affect the environment and that's because there isn't any clear answers. So educate yourself then decide what to do after that.

andygates 9y ago
There really aren't 'both sides' to this. There's as much scientific controversy as there is over gravity or evolution. The deniers used to deny there was change ("it's cycles!"). Then they denied it was humans (it really is, attribution is getting good). They're denying it's bad ("CO2 is plant food!"); and once things get really in train, they'll be denying ever being warned by those mean old scientists.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Yes there really are and not just two but many. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest numbers from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 I don't know about you but I see a range, a wide range. It IS cycles, it's always been cycles historically and the climate is always changing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.... The discussion is not whether humans have an effect but how much. Again no certainty even closely resembling evolution. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-... But you can take the same argument and turn it against the climate alarmist. First, they said new york would be under water by now. Then, they said the temperature was rising rapidly (but they had to adjust that claim down quite dramatically) Then, they said the oceans are getting toxicated. There is no clear consensus on this. We might or might not effect the climate more or less than we think. But try and find any official number for how much humans affect the climate and you will be very dissapointed. Science is not about certainty it's about testing hypothesis. The way climate scientist teste them is by using computer models. That's nowhere close to providing us with the scientific evidence and testability of gravity. And evolution is a model, the best model we have to explain the evolution of species there is a lot of discussion inside of evolution. Trying to close down any dissent or argument simply by saying there is nothing to discuss because science, is the most anti scientific thing you can do IMO.

pulisse 9y ago

It's a collective action problem. Mitigation on an individual level isn't meaningful.

bigbugbag 9y ago

Vote with your money, a.k.a. boycott. do not support any product/service that contribute to climate change. Aim for the level of life of a regular Indian citizen, or even better Bhutanese. Invest in insulation of your home, learn survivalist skills (how to make a fire, make a shelter, grow food, treat disease, make medicine, etc.) prepare for a scenario where you have to live a nomadic on the go for a while, join a group of similar minded individual. Or if you have the required kind of budget, follow the step of the ultra rich and buy yourself a piece of land in a remote place (new zealand is hot right now) and build yourself a bunker with enough ressources to live on your own for as long as necessary. Basically you want to find a way to ride out the collapse of civilization and be equipped to rebuild afterwards.

Caveman_Coder 9y ago
> "...learn survivalist skills (how to make a fire, make a shelter, grow food, treat disease, make medicine, etc.)" These used to just be "normal" skills that people knew...funny how things have changed.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Exactly, today we call them survivalist skills, but really these are skills your grand parents skills had and got from their parents. IMHO it is a matter of bridging a gap that span only a couple generations. My grand parents were growing food and covering 95% of the needs for a family of 12 with only animal traction. It was a life of much less comfort and convenience but it was sustainable and mostly a happy life.

ghthor 9y ago

Reuse reuse reuse, Prefer glass over plastic and walking more are my personal ways of offsetting my footprint.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]