3 ms·
That’s the IPCC estimate assuming we take urgent global action now. But instead of taking urgent global action, Brazil are about to open the rain forest to agr
by incangold 8y ago
That’s the IPCC estimate assuming we take urgent global action now.
But instead of taking urgent global action, Brazil are about to open the rain forest to agri-business; the White House does not believe it is possible to stop climate change and is rolling back environmental protections and pulling out of the Paris Accord (which was nowhere near enough in the first place, and which none of the other signatories were achieving anyway); and Europe is distracted by Brexit and demagoguery. China are looking more serious, but are also pissing in the wind at current levels of effort.
The IPCC report is in any case probably extremely optimistic on the impact of releasing the methane stored in permafrost. That could catapult temperatures up far too quickly for the ecosystem to adapt to, or even humanity to adapt to, even if we science very, very hard.
So 1.5 degrees is what we get if we put in unprecedented effort that none of the important countries are showing any signs of doing, and also if we use probably-optimistic models.
At least 4 degrees is more likely on current trajectory, and that is absolutely terrifying. North of that we get into the end of civilisation in anything like its current form.
Also, arguably the most important gains of the last decades are from what used to be called the developing world dragging itself out of poverty. A disproportionate share of the economic and human cost of climate collapse will fall on those countries. Which doesn’t seem very fair because they haven’t had enough time to significantly contribute to or benefit from burning hydrocarbons.
It is quite frustrating because doing what we need to do to stop all of this is relatively simple, if quite difficult, is basically inevitable anyway because
renewables are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels, and will make the world better in all sorts of other ways.
Get your shit together humanity.
- incangold 8y agoI forgot to mention Australia, which is trying to expand coal because it is currently governed by absolutely awful people.
- kauffj 8y agoA quick attempt to find costs for 4 degrees C found ~7% of GDP, which would be inline with the figures from my original post. Source (first result for "gdp global warming 4 degree celsius"): https://phys.org/news/2018-08-trillion-lost-temperatures-degrees.html https://phys.org/news/2018-08-trillion-lost-temperatures-deg... Do you have alternative numbers? 7% of GDP is a big hit, but it's not "end of civilization".
- thatcat 8y agoIs GDP a good metric of the planets net worth? I'd say biodiversity is a better one. If you include the opportunity cost of losing all the value bound in the genes of organisms that will go extinct before we can use it, for example, things look much worse. If you insist on GDP, then what will be the effect on the distribution of wealth? And decades of stagnant GDP's effect on investment in technology? Without constant growth many things will fall apart in our society.
- graeme 8y agoI don't think any economic models are reliable in the event of 4 degrees of warming. The system is far too complex to forecast with any precision. We can conclusively say it would be bad, but "how bad" can't be stated quantitatively. Only qualitatively, in terms of "X percent of land would be rendered uninhabitable" or "X% increase in crop failures". Those are numbers, of course and can be estimated better. I'm saying they can't be combined to a global gdp total. The system is too large, and there will be cascading effects. Some sort of war is also a likely result, and then all bets are off.