4 ms·

With the human population growing exponentially, its a certainty that we will breeze by the 1.5 degrees limit very soon. People don't want to give up their che

by vfc1 7y ago

With the human population growing exponentially, its a certainty that we will breeze by the 1.5 degrees limit very soon. People don't want to give up their cheeseburgers, all excuses are good, and the level of misinformation that goes around the topic of climate change is through the roof. I'm glad Greta is contributing to informing the general public of the consequences of their choices but people don't want to hear it will take a lifetime to change the behavior of even a small amount of people.

drmpeg 7y ago
Only when Miami is completely underwater and uninhabitable will there be a change of behavior.
- tremon 7y ago
  When Miami is completely underwater and uninhabitable there will still only be a change of behavior of Miamians, I fear.
- madaxe_again 7y ago
  Sooner - when insurers start either putting premiums up to completely unaffordable levels, or outright refuse insurance. When cities can no longer afford the infrastructure burden, and are forced to put taxes through the roof. That won’t take Miami being completely underwater, just a few more severe storm surges. When millions of people start losing their retirement homes, tunes will change.
- vfc1 7y ago
  I bet that still then you will only hear: "it's just a couple of miles near the coast, it's not the end of the world. It's not that bad."
  - thundergolfer 7y ago
    I get your point about people being stubbornly ignorant, but I learned this today so I thought I’d throw it out there. If ocean rising has gotten so bad that Miami is underwater the accompanying acidification of those oceans will have reaped havoc on marine fishing putting 500 million people’s food security at risk. Half a billion people in underdeveloped countries without to a vital part of their diet. Half a billion, and that’s just people that rely on fish. Inland people add to the numbers if their farming suffers.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  What are you talking about? Even in my very conservative neck of the woods, I see people changing their buying patterns. Being "green" is now desirable, unlike 15 or so years ago. Honestly, I think a few things could nudge people in the right direction, such as: - decreasing size of trash and recycling cans - small tax on single use goods, like grocery bags and packing materials - end or at least reduce subsidies for food, oil, etc - charge vehicle registration based on milage/year and vehicle type - create a pollution tax and return it as a dividend We can try to force people to do the right thing, but I'm of the opinion that people are really good at avoiding rules, so increasing costs may be more impactful. That's a large part of my many of my neighbors are becoming more green: - LEDs are cheaper than incandescents or florescents over time - electric cars are more convenient (no gas station visits) and getting to be price competitive with gas cars - reusable shopping bags are becoming more and more common People want to be green and will often choose the "better" option, provided it's reasonably close in price. Thus increasing the cost of bad options should increase competition and innovation for good options.
mikorym 7y ago
> the human population growing exponentially This is not true as of 2019. The only continent that possibly does not show logistic growth (yet) is Africa. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#/media/File:...
- madaxe_again 7y ago
  Those are gently flattening lines on a logarithmic scale. No, growth is no longer exponential, but it’s still greater than linear. While it’s likely true that we will end up with a sigmoid curve, population is still growing at a high rate
  - keanzu 7y ago
    A high rate? Population in the world is currently (2019-2020) growing at a rate of around 1.08% per year. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      By the rule of 72, that's doubling in 66 years. Under a lifetime seems to qualify as high.
    - vfc1 7y ago
      That's a 108% increase in a century, which is a relatively short time in historical terms. Imagine the damage to the planet with double the current human population. This could be around the corner, historically speaking.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Err, no it isn't, it's 100% in approximately 66 years. It's compounded growth. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72

by vfc1 7y ago

drmpeg 7y ago

Only when Miami is completely underwater and uninhabitable will there be a change of behavior.

tremon 7y ago
When Miami is completely underwater and uninhabitable there will still only be a change of behavior of Miamians, I fear.
madaxe_again 7y ago
Sooner - when insurers start either putting premiums up to completely unaffordable levels, or outright refuse insurance. When cities can no longer afford the infrastructure burden, and are forced to put taxes through the roof. That won’t take Miami being completely underwater, just a few more severe storm surges. When millions of people start losing their retirement homes, tunes will change.
vfc1 7y ago
I bet that still then you will only hear: "it's just a couple of miles near the coast, it's not the end of the world. It's not that bad."
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  I get your point about people being stubbornly ignorant, but I learned this today so I thought I’d throw it out there. If ocean rising has gotten so bad that Miami is underwater the accompanying acidification of those oceans will have reaped havoc on marine fishing putting 500 million people’s food security at risk. Half a billion people in underdeveloped countries without to a vital part of their diet. Half a billion, and that’s just people that rely on fish. Inland people add to the numbers if their farming suffers.
beatgammit 7y ago
What are you talking about? Even in my very conservative neck of the woods, I see people changing their buying patterns. Being "green" is now desirable, unlike 15 or so years ago. Honestly, I think a few things could nudge people in the right direction, such as: - decreasing size of trash and recycling cans - small tax on single use goods, like grocery bags and packing materials - end or at least reduce subsidies for food, oil, etc - charge vehicle registration based on milage/year and vehicle type - create a pollution tax and return it as a dividend We can try to force people to do the right thing, but I'm of the opinion that people are really good at avoiding rules, so increasing costs may be more impactful. That's a large part of my many of my neighbors are becoming more green: - LEDs are cheaper than incandescents or florescents over time - electric cars are more convenient (no gas station visits) and getting to be price competitive with gas cars - reusable shopping bags are becoming more and more common People want to be green and will often choose the "better" option, provided it's reasonably close in price. Thus increasing the cost of bad options should increase competition and innovation for good options.

mikorym 7y ago

> the human population growing exponentially This is not true as of 2019. The only continent that possibly does not show logistic growth (yet) is Africa. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#/media/File:...

madaxe_again 7y ago
Those are gently flattening lines on a logarithmic scale. No, growth is no longer exponential, but it’s still greater than linear. While it’s likely true that we will end up with a sigmoid curve, population is still growing at a high rate
- keanzu 7y ago
  A high rate? Population in the world is currently (2019-2020) growing at a rate of around 1.08% per year. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    By the rule of 72, that's doubling in 66 years. Under a lifetime seems to qualify as high.
  - vfc1 7y ago
    That's a 108% increase in a century, which is a relatively short time in historical terms. Imagine the damage to the planet with double the current human population. This could be around the corner, historically speaking.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Err, no it isn't, it's 100% in approximately 66 years. It's compounded growth. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72