4 ms·

Facing the consequences of climate change

13 points by rahooligan 16y ago

dannyb 16y ago
Here's the problem that I see that few people discuss. Why should China and India care? The vast majority of their combined population, about 30% of the world's total, live under miserable circumstances by western standards. Move 100 million people off the coastline? No big deal. More typhoons? Oh well, we'll just rebuild the shacks. China has a far greater problem in balancing the needs and wants of the haves and have-nots and they are going to address those issues first. They have everything to gain by continuing to industrialize and I think that anyone who believes that they will actually cut their emissions is kidding themselves. I think we could take a huge step towards energy independence by building nuclear plants and driving hydrogen cars. Instead of dozens of smaller problems to solve, we could focus on just one: what to do with nuclear waste.
- zb 16y ago
  From memory there are around 100 million people living in the Ganges delta in Bangladesh. It's hard to imagine that India would welcome the kind of instability that climate change could cause right on their doorstep.
- marknutter 16y ago
  Can't we just reprocess that nuclear waste like the French do?
  - dannyb 16y ago
    Yes, we could make reactors much more efficient than they were in the past, but there still will be waste to deal with.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  100 million off the coastline??? China's shining jewels of modernity are right on the coast, or hell, a goddamn island. I think China would care very much if they lost half of Shanghai or Hong Kong (ok, probably exaggerating a bit). I mean, even if they were as callous as popular belief, it would still be a huge loss of face. Its one thing for China to forcefully relocate its lower classes, but Shanghai/Hong Kong is full of China's middle and upper class, and they won't like it when they have to move.
arethuza 16y ago
I know you can't extrapolate from local isolated weather conditions, but it does strike me as slightly ironic that I'm reading this article about Global Warming after a day spent outside in the record early snowfalls and cold conditions here in Scotland. Which after last years epic amounts of snow and cold is beginning to looks like a pattern.... (I hope).
- celoyd 16y ago
  The overall warming trend means there’s more energy in the system, which means some patterns will change, and some patterns (like the Gulf Stream) are local warmings. So, in some cases, consistently colder weather is evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    I know I shouldn't, but the prospect of consistently colder and snowier winters makes me very happy.
    - btilly 16y ago
      There is a real possibility that you'll get too much of a good thing. One of the open questions about global warming is whether the Gulf Stream will get shut off, causing your climate to look at lot like Alaska's. See http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/ http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/ for links to lots of articles and research on this.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Agreed - I was just outside and had to clear a crapload of global warming of me. I would just think it was kind of funny if it wasn't for climategate.
- c1sc0 16y ago
  'I hope' ... let me guess: you're into mountaineering, right?
  - 16y ago
hugh3 16y ago
It seems that by 2100, if the stated effects (which are certainly at the high end of what's realistic), it ought to be relatively easy to do some large-scale engineering to mitigate them. Either dig some new seas to soak up the water (Australia could use its own Mediterranean) or put mirrors in orbit to cool the planet.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Yes, large scale terraforming is both simple to understand, easy to do, and poses no political difficulties at all! I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong. I mean, you realize that even if we could put giant space mirrors in orbit, it wouldn't solve all the biggest climate change problems, right? Reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface does nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 in the oceans, which means we might still devastate the ability of a few billion people to get sufficient protein to survive.
- rbranson 16y ago
  erm... there's more issues than just the sea level rise. If it was that simple, we'd already have a plan. The overwhelming parts are the widespread destruction and depletion of usable farmland, ocean acidification & oxygen depletion, water scarcity, jumps in disease vectors, and the increased use of energy-intensive technology to mitigate the effects of climate change which in turn creates a vicious cycle.

13 points by rahooligan 16y ago

Here's the problem that I see that few people discuss. Why should China and India care? The vast majority of their combined population, about 30% of the world's total, live under miserable circumstances by western standards. Move 100 million people off the coastline? No big deal. More typhoons? Oh well, we'll just rebuild the shacks. China has a far greater problem in balancing the needs and wants of the haves and have-nots and they are going to address those issues first. They have everything to gain by continuing to industrialize and I think that anyone who believes that they will actually cut their emissions is kidding themselves. I think we could take a huge step towards energy independence by building nuclear plants and driving hydrogen cars. Instead of dozens of smaller problems to solve, we could focus on just one: what to do with nuclear waste.

zb 16y ago
From memory there are around 100 million people living in the Ganges delta in Bangladesh. It's hard to imagine that India would welcome the kind of instability that climate change could cause right on their doorstep.
marknutter 16y ago
Can't we just reprocess that nuclear waste like the French do?
- dannyb 16y ago
  Yes, we could make reactors much more efficient than they were in the past, but there still will be waste to deal with.
icegreentea 16y ago
100 million off the coastline??? China's shining jewels of modernity are right on the coast, or hell, a goddamn island. I think China would care very much if they lost half of Shanghai or Hong Kong (ok, probably exaggerating a bit). I mean, even if they were as callous as popular belief, it would still be a huge loss of face. Its one thing for China to forcefully relocate its lower classes, but Shanghai/Hong Kong is full of China's middle and upper class, and they won't like it when they have to move.

arethuza 16y ago

I know you can't extrapolate from local isolated weather conditions, but it does strike me as slightly ironic that I'm reading this article about Global Warming after a day spent outside in the record early snowfalls and cold conditions here in Scotland. Which after last years epic amounts of snow and cold is beginning to looks like a pattern.... (I hope).

celoyd 16y ago
The overall warming trend means there’s more energy in the system, which means some patterns will change, and some patterns (like the Gulf Stream) are local warmings. So, in some cases, consistently colder weather is evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I know I shouldn't, but the prospect of consistently colder and snowier winters makes me very happy.
  - btilly 16y ago
    There is a real possibility that you'll get too much of a good thing. One of the open questions about global warming is whether the Gulf Stream will get shut off, causing your climate to look at lot like Alaska's. See http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/ http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/ for links to lots of articles and research on this.
tomjen3 16y ago
Agreed - I was just outside and had to clear a crapload of global warming of me. I would just think it was kind of funny if it wasn't for climategate.
c1sc0 16y ago
'I hope' ... let me guess: you're into mountaineering, right?
- 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

It seems that by 2100, if the stated effects (which are certainly at the high end of what's realistic), it ought to be relatively easy to do some large-scale engineering to mitigate them. Either dig some new seas to soak up the water (Australia could use its own Mediterranean) or put mirrors in orbit to cool the planet.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Yes, large scale terraforming is both simple to understand, easy to do, and poses no political difficulties at all! I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong. I mean, you realize that even if we could put giant space mirrors in orbit, it wouldn't solve all the biggest climate change problems, right? Reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface does nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 in the oceans, which means we might still devastate the ability of a few billion people to get sufficient protein to survive.
rbranson 16y ago
erm... there's more issues than just the sea level rise. If it was that simple, we'd already have a plan. The overwhelming parts are the widespread destruction and depletion of usable farmland, ocean acidification & oxygen depletion, water scarcity, jumps in disease vectors, and the increased use of energy-intensive technology to mitigate the effects of climate change which in turn creates a vicious cycle.