3 ms·

Completely disagree, we could solve climate change with today's technology if the political/popular will existed.

eanzenberg 8y ago
More importantly, we should ask, should we? If the worst outcome is 3ft rise in sea level in 100 years, what’s the point of spending $50t+?
- brianberns 8y ago
  Do you enjoy breathing oxygen? If so, you might want to read the linked article.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    I forgot I live in the ocean..
    - brianberns 8y ago
      The ocean produces 70% of the oxygen that you breathe.
    - ehnto 8y ago
      You live in the oceans ecosystem. I am also just baffled you would put some monetary tokens we literally made up as higher priority than the real, physical environment you live in. We will spend countless more money surviving and adapting. It will be an economic disaster as well as an environmental one.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      Looks like the oxygen deprivation is already having an impact.
- ehnto 8y ago
  Sea levels rising is just one of the symptoms. Complete ecosystems dying, including many we rely on for food, is another. Extreme weather patterns including higher frequencies of devastating natural disasters is another. This isn't just in other places either, no matter where you live, highland, lowland, tropical, arid, you will be affected. What good is $50t when the economy that accepts it is going haywire as countless resources are "refactored" by the environment.
- mrpopo 8y ago
  3 feet sea level rise is not the worst outcome, it's practically locked in according to NASA. https://weather.com/science/environment/news/nasa-sea-level-rise-3-feet-end-of-century https://weather.com/science/environment/news/nasa-sea-level-... Note that we have been underestimating the long-term effects of climate change routinely for the past 20 years, and even then people are calling the conclusions "exaggerated" and wonder what is the point. If you read some of the sources from Wikipedia, some projections estimate more than 2.4 meters rise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Bangladesh is the poster child for rising sea level dangers. It's not just about loss of coastal areas (40%), but also increased salinity in drinking water, less fertile lands. People will lose their houses and starve. https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/ https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise... Globally, the consequences are so spread and so complex that it's really hard to grasp. So, yes, we should do something. Unless you say you understand all the consequences and assume them, but frankly I would not believe you.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
I agree with that this is possible. Fixing our planet is a technical problem that is strongly correlated with fixing other things we need (water, food, energy). Basically getting rid of fossil fuels is part of the solution. The tech for that already exists and many countries are pretty far done with the transition to clean energy sources. This will probably take a few more decades but at this point it's more a question of when rather than if this will go to it's ultimate conclusion of completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels for energy production. In that same time frame most cars will be electric. There are also signs that ships and planes will be running on a combination of fuel cells and batteries in the next few decades as well. So, basically the entire transport and energy sector are in the process of cleaning up their act and progress is very rapid there; driven by cost and other advantages. The next issue is fixing agriculture. We've turned quite a bit of land into desert the last century. Turning that around is going to require a bit of out of the box thinking but it is not impossible. Apparently soil can capture a lot of carbon, which gets released when the land dries out. So the existing practices of abusing the land with mono culture crops is very destructive. User of fertilizers and pesticides kills the soil. Plowing and burning kill it further. Wind and rain erodes soil that has nothing growing on it. That's the recent history of a lot of newly created desert. So, fixing this would be a big deal and there are some people who are arguing this is a reversible process. Doing so, would produce usable farm land in the and turn currently useless land back into productive land. And if you consider planned grazing as part of the solution (some people do), that would fix a sustainable source of meat as well. So, there's reason to be optimistic. I do feel the incentives are wrong, all of the above is happening because it is more economical. Being cleaner is a useful side-effect but we should drive home the point that it is more economical. Making clean the obvious economical choice is the key to speeding this up. Subsidize good things, tax bad things, put a stop to bad practices. Some countries are still getting this quite wrong by doing the opposite.

More importantly, we should ask, should we? If the worst outcome is 3ft rise in sea level in 100 years, what’s the point of spending $50t+?

brianberns 8y ago
Do you enjoy breathing oxygen? If so, you might want to read the linked article.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  I forgot I live in the ocean..
  - brianberns 8y ago
    The ocean produces 70% of the oxygen that you breathe.
  - ehnto 8y ago
    You live in the oceans ecosystem. I am also just baffled you would put some monetary tokens we literally made up as higher priority than the real, physical environment you live in. We will spend countless more money surviving and adapting. It will be an economic disaster as well as an environmental one.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Looks like the oxygen deprivation is already having an impact.
ehnto 8y ago
Sea levels rising is just one of the symptoms. Complete ecosystems dying, including many we rely on for food, is another. Extreme weather patterns including higher frequencies of devastating natural disasters is another. This isn't just in other places either, no matter where you live, highland, lowland, tropical, arid, you will be affected. What good is $50t when the economy that accepts it is going haywire as countless resources are "refactored" by the environment.
mrpopo 8y ago
3 feet sea level rise is not the worst outcome, it's practically locked in according to NASA. https://weather.com/science/environment/news/nasa-sea-level-rise-3-feet-end-of-century https://weather.com/science/environment/news/nasa-sea-level-... Note that we have been underestimating the long-term effects of climate change routinely for the past 20 years, and even then people are calling the conclusions "exaggerated" and wonder what is the point. If you read some of the sources from Wikipedia, some projections estimate more than 2.4 meters rise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Bangladesh is the poster child for rising sea level dangers. It's not just about loss of coastal areas (40%), but also increased salinity in drinking water, less fertile lands. People will lose their houses and starve. https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/ https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise... Globally, the consequences are so spread and so complex that it's really hard to grasp. So, yes, we should do something. Unless you say you understand all the consequences and assume them, but frankly I would not believe you.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

I agree with that this is possible. Fixing our planet is a technical problem that is strongly correlated with fixing other things we need (water, food, energy). Basically getting rid of fossil fuels is part of the solution. The tech for that already exists and many countries are pretty far done with the transition to clean energy sources. This will probably take a few more decades but at this point it's more a question of when rather than if this will go to it's ultimate conclusion of completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels for energy production. In that same time frame most cars will be electric. There are also signs that ships and planes will be running on a combination of fuel cells and batteries in the next few decades as well. So, basically the entire transport and energy sector are in the process of cleaning up their act and progress is very rapid there; driven by cost and other advantages. The next issue is fixing agriculture. We've turned quite a bit of land into desert the last century. Turning that around is going to require a bit of out of the box thinking but it is not impossible. Apparently soil can capture a lot of carbon, which gets released when the land dries out. So the existing practices of abusing the land with mono culture crops is very destructive. User of fertilizers and pesticides kills the soil. Plowing and burning kill it further. Wind and rain erodes soil that has nothing growing on it. That's the recent history of a lot of newly created desert. So, fixing this would be a big deal and there are some people who are arguing this is a reversible process. Doing so, would produce usable farm land in the and turn currently useless land back into productive land. And if you consider planned grazing as part of the solution (some people do), that would fix a sustainable source of meat as well. So, there's reason to be optimistic. I do feel the incentives are wrong, all of the above is happening because it is more economical. Being cleaner is a useful side-effect but we should drive home the point that it is more economical. Making clean the obvious economical choice is the key to speeding this up. Subsidize good things, tax bad things, put a stop to bad practices. Some countries are still getting this quite wrong by doing the opposite.