2 ms·

Here's some actual facts from an IPCC report [0]: -The planet has warmed approximately 1.0C since pre industrial times -It is likely this will reach 1.5C of t

by ac29 7y ago

Here's some actual facts from an IPCC report [0]: -The planet has warmed approximately 1.0C since pre industrial times -It is likely this will reach 1.5C of total warming between 2030-2052 -"6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C" -The biggest impacts will be to unique ecosystems like coral reefs or mountain glaciers -Overall global impact of 1.5C warming is expected to be "detectable" with medium confidence Nowhere does it come anywhere close to saying that the additional 0.5C increase in temperatures in the next 10-30 years will make currently inhabited regions "literally uninhabitable". [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15...

ncmncm 7y ago
There is no reasonable expectation that temperature increase will be limited to 1.5 degrees, because the recommended reductions in CO2 emissions are not, in fact, occurring, and in fact they are still increasing. Thus far, events have turned out to reliably hug the high side of IPCC projections, each year. Out-migration from tropical areas is already occurring, and already generating fascist leanings in destination countries. There is no reason to believe either will spontaneously reverse. Impact on coral reefs implies reduced fish stocks, and thus reduced protein availability. Continued denial of observable effects at all levels does not inspire expectation of an effective response.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I wouldn't expect an effective response unless or until there is a mainstream estimate of the economic cost of climate change that would exceed the amount necessary to motivate action applied to the cost of energy. Are you aware of one? Like, I'm saying, (1) what is the price of energy that would reduce CO2 output enough to "effectively" address warming, and (2) what is the source that says the annual net cost of not addressing the climate in several decades is more than the yearly cost of killing demand at the price in (1)? This seems like a very important question no matter what you think the answer should be, because it would affect strategy for addressing climate change. Is effectively stopping climate change a matter of better accounting, or of changing what billions of people value and how much?

by ac29 7y ago

ncmncm 7y ago

There is no reasonable expectation that temperature increase will be limited to 1.5 degrees, because the recommended reductions in CO2 emissions are not, in fact, occurring, and in fact they are still increasing. Thus far, events have turned out to reliably hug the high side of IPCC projections, each year. Out-migration from tropical areas is already occurring, and already generating fascist leanings in destination countries. There is no reason to believe either will spontaneously reverse. Impact on coral reefs implies reduced fish stocks, and thus reduced protein availability. Continued denial of observable effects at all levels does not inspire expectation of an effective response.

perl4ever 7y ago
I wouldn't expect an effective response unless or until there is a mainstream estimate of the economic cost of climate change that would exceed the amount necessary to motivate action applied to the cost of energy. Are you aware of one? Like, I'm saying, (1) what is the price of energy that would reduce CO2 output enough to "effectively" address warming, and (2) what is the source that says the annual net cost of not addressing the climate in several decades is more than the yearly cost of killing demand at the price in (1)? This seems like a very important question no matter what you think the answer should be, because it would affect strategy for addressing climate change. Is effectively stopping climate change a matter of better accounting, or of changing what billions of people value and how much?