5 ms·

Very discouraging. It's hard to see how we'll be able to reach any climate goals without world class high speed rail across the country. Perhaps the sticker sho

Very discouraging. It's hard to see how we'll be able to reach any climate goals without world class high speed rail across the country. Perhaps the sticker shock and lack of political will is too much to tackle climate change before it's too late.

rlanday 8y ago
At this point it’s looking like we should just spend the money on air conditioning, sea walls, and disaster relief and call it a day.
- ummonk 8y ago
  I mean, that is what I’ve always thought makes more sense. It would be a lot cheaper than trying to avert (or at this point limit) climate change.
- zanny 8y ago
  The threats of climate change to humanity are more about the ecological collapse from temperature rise that will destroy our food supply and leave most of starving. We can already see it happening with dramatically reduced insect populations, fish populations, bird populations, etc. Whats hard is to distinguish what is caused by the global temperature changes vs just general human habitat destruction, but the general decline of insect populations at certain equatorial belts in the last decade definitely hints towards a global influence from climate change. If all we had to do were just relocate our coastal metros a few meters up after the polar ice melts and just proceed as usual with 3c hotter days on average it wouldn't be this severe of an existential threat. It is probably half of why its so hard to argue towards fixing - the real danger seems "impossible" to most people because they can't wrap their head around how delicate biomes can be and the domino effects our mass extinction event is causing.
  - rlanday 8y ago
    I think the effects of loss of biodiversity are often overstated. Humans mostly depend on a small set of domesticated animals; as far as I’m aware, no one is seriously suggesting that cows, pigs, sheep, or chickens are going to go extinct, or that farmers will be unable to feed them.
greggeter 8y ago
$77b buys 10 nuclear plants and does far better good at reducing carbon emissions. You'd want nuclear to power those trains anyway.

rlanday 8y ago

At this point it’s looking like we should just spend the money on air conditioning, sea walls, and disaster relief and call it a day.

ummonk 8y ago
I mean, that is what I’ve always thought makes more sense. It would be a lot cheaper than trying to avert (or at this point limit) climate change.
zanny 8y ago
The threats of climate change to humanity are more about the ecological collapse from temperature rise that will destroy our food supply and leave most of starving. We can already see it happening with dramatically reduced insect populations, fish populations, bird populations, etc. Whats hard is to distinguish what is caused by the global temperature changes vs just general human habitat destruction, but the general decline of insect populations at certain equatorial belts in the last decade definitely hints towards a global influence from climate change. If all we had to do were just relocate our coastal metros a few meters up after the polar ice melts and just proceed as usual with 3c hotter days on average it wouldn't be this severe of an existential threat. It is probably half of why its so hard to argue towards fixing - the real danger seems "impossible" to most people because they can't wrap their head around how delicate biomes can be and the domino effects our mass extinction event is causing.
- rlanday 8y ago
  I think the effects of loss of biodiversity are often overstated. Humans mostly depend on a small set of domesticated animals; as far as I’m aware, no one is seriously suggesting that cows, pigs, sheep, or chickens are going to go extinct, or that farmers will be unable to feed them.

greggeter 8y ago

$77b buys 10 nuclear plants and does far better good at reducing carbon emissions. You'd want nuclear to power those trains anyway.