2 ms·

I'm familiar with some of the research on government policy acceptance/salience viz-a-viz climate change and alternative energy (I have a PhD interview tomorrow

by zhdc1 9y ago

I'm familiar with some of the research on government policy acceptance/salience viz-a-viz climate change and alternative energy (I have a PhD interview tomorrow on this very subject), and I agree with some of what you're saying. Western society is robust, and over a long time period many of the more dire impacts from rising temperatures will be mitigated in one way or another. The issue is that, while climate change at UN COP21-23 estimates isn't necessarily an existential threat to Western society, it 1.) has exceptionally real effects on individuals who are affected (and those who are going to be affected in the near future) and 2.) requires an enormous amount of investment and development to manage the transition from a pre 2C rise to a post 2C rise. When you're looking at having to protect at least 20K+ square km of land and ~150-200M people, some amount of directness is acceptable.

PeterisP 9y ago
Saying "we are all doomed" is not some amount of directness. Saying "200mm of people will migrate or die" (assuming its true) would be direct, but the "we are all doomed" is very misleading because the effects are not universal and not evenly distributed. The described scenarios will not cause doom to me, and most likely to you as well. Furthermore, even for the politicians that have completely publicly accepted the notion of climate change, statements like "requires an enormous amount of investment and development to manage the transition" and "having to protect at least 20K+ square km of land and ~150-200M people" are simply literally false - they can (and possibly will) choose not to protect that land and those people, because they're "others". They have the ability to choose not investing in managing that transition globally, but only handling the direct local consequences, and protect their population from the global effects simply by investing into armaments/defence industry - as Dr. Hillman is saying in the original article, "How are these regions going to respond? We see it now. Migrants will be prevented from arriving. We will let them drown." Looking at some of our global leaders, such a scenario seems at least possible.

by zhdc1 9y ago

PeterisP 9y ago

Saying "we are all doomed" is not some amount of directness. Saying "200mm of people will migrate or die" (assuming its true) would be direct, but the "we are all doomed" is very misleading because the effects are not universal and not evenly distributed. The described scenarios will not cause doom to me, and most likely to you as well. Furthermore, even for the politicians that have completely publicly accepted the notion of climate change, statements like "requires an enormous amount of investment and development to manage the transition" and "having to protect at least 20K+ square km of land and ~150-200M people" are simply literally false - they can (and possibly will) choose not to protect that land and those people, because they're "others". They have the ability to choose not investing in managing that transition globally, but only handling the direct local consequences, and protect their population from the global effects simply by investing into armaments/defence industry - as Dr. Hillman is saying in the original article, "How are these regions going to respond? We see it now. Migrants will be prevented from arriving. We will let them drown." Looking at some of our global leaders, such a scenario seems at least possible.