7 ms·

To be clear, this measures the issue global leaders think is biggest, not necessarily what issue is actually biggest. This is probably mostly a proxy for "clim

by arikr 7y ago

To be clear, this measures the issue global leaders think is biggest, not necessarily what issue is actually biggest. This is probably mostly a proxy for "climate threats are the most top of mind issue for global leaders" due to the recent rise in coverage.

AlexanderDhoore 7y ago
Global heating because of greenhouse gasses is an existential threat to society. It is the biggest threat we have ever faced (on par with nuclear war). And we are losing, big time.
- deadbunny 7y ago
  We're not losing, we're not even fighting.
  - yodsanklai 7y ago
    Not sure why you're downvoted. My (French) government first preoccupation is increasing growth. Sad thing is that they do what they've been elected for. Recently they decided to decrease the speed limit, which was met by a general upset. Ironically, reduction of pollution wasn't even stated as a reason for these new limitations (they are concerned about car accident apparently). These guys just don't care about the environment. People give a lot of flak to Greta Thunberg (universally hated) but she asks the right questions to our leaders. EDIT: I wish downvoters would take the time to share their point of view.
    - mayniac 7y ago
      I just wrote up and deleted a comment on why you were wrong about the gilet jaunes "[not caring] about the environment" before re-reading your comment and realising you meant Macron's government doesn't care about the environment. I think that may be why you got downvoted.
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  Global heating is not on par with nuclear war. Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years, nuclear fallout is not. At worst many people will die but not the entire earth will be inhabitable. Keep in mind that earth cannot get worse than the last time all CO2 was in the atmosphere. Trees are younger than sharks. There was plenty of life when all CO2 was free. Somewhere in that environment will be space for life like the last time. Sharks and trees and many other animals and plants made it though that environment. And somewhere in that environment, there will be some space for humans because we will be adaptable. Instead, the biggest threat is AI. It's the new nuclear race. It will come as fast as human possible and it will have access to the most powerful weapons since any participant in that race will need that move to protect themselves. Unlike CO2, AI will add something to the system that wasn't there before. Its power will be unmatched and unlike humans, it won't miss any lost life-form.
  - electricviolet 7y ago
    > Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years That's optimistic. Climate change is potentially reversible, but it would involve large-scale geoengineering or carbon capture that we don't have the technology for yet. Developing and deploying that currently-nonexistent technology requires a stable, organized society. It's plausible that climate change could cause the breakdown of organized society before we're able to develop technology to reverse it.
    - toohotatopic 7y ago
      Don't forget the trees. Maybe it's a couple of thousand years, but let them roam earth and the CO2 is gone, like the last time. Since bacteria is digesting cellulose this time, we can't rely on earth to fold over old wood. Instead, humans will have to manage the storage. But that should be doable, given the speed with which we can harvest forests.
    - to11mtm 7y ago
      I wish I could remember the name of the plant... But there's some tree that grows like a freaking weed and is amazing for carbon sequestration. I feel like even having 'more' trees again would be helpful; where my family grew up, over the years all the big/old trees that were in people's yards were never replaced as they went away.
Daishiman 7y ago
Sure, but necessarily, any informed person understands that it is by the largest existential risk of humanity.
- minikites 7y ago
  Lots of people don't believe it's a problem or even claim it will be a benefit and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    I'm reminded of Kubrick's quote about the atom bomb[0]: "People react primarily to direct experience and not to abstractions; it is very rare to find anyone who can become emotionally involved with an abstraction. The longer the bomb is around without anything happening, the better the job that people do in psychologically denying its existence. It has become as abstract as the fact that we are all going to die someday, which we usually do an excellent job of denying." A disturbing corollary: the same challenge of processing an abstraction exists amongst most non-experts who accept AGW (and I'm among them). Hence symbolic gestures (banning straws), conflation with other sacred-cow political issues (corporate capitalism), belief in looming extinction (unlikely; the threat is to civilization, not homo sapiens), all generally filtered through a "purity" moral matrix (to put it in Haidt-ian terms). As the complex reality becomes filtered through moralizing and politicizing, the other side digs in their heels for predictable tribalist and game-theoretic reasons. It's a truly wicked problem. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1966/11/12/how-about-a-little-game https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1966/11/12/how-about-a-li...
  - imtringued 7y ago
    I don't understand this sentiment. After years of stagnation at around 911 million tons of CO2 Germany managed to reduce carbon emissions by 40 million tons in 2019 alone. The only thing that changed was a spike in the price of EU CO2 certificates which resulted in less electricity being produced from coal. It's absurd that this incredible progress is held back by the fear of losing 20k coal jobs when the reality is that those 20k coal jobs prevented the creation of hundreds of thousands in the renewable energy sector. Even if you think the whole thing is a scam you see that having a grand mission to invest in modern technology is an incredibly effective jobs program just like sending people to the moon. Nobody has gone to the moon again but we still benefit from all the research from that era.

by arikr 7y ago

AlexanderDhoore 7y ago

Global heating because of greenhouse gasses is an existential threat to society. It is the biggest threat we have ever faced (on par with nuclear war). And we are losing, big time.

deadbunny 7y ago
We're not losing, we're not even fighting.
- yodsanklai 7y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted. My (French) government first preoccupation is increasing growth. Sad thing is that they do what they've been elected for. Recently they decided to decrease the speed limit, which was met by a general upset. Ironically, reduction of pollution wasn't even stated as a reason for these new limitations (they are concerned about car accident apparently). These guys just don't care about the environment. People give a lot of flak to Greta Thunberg (universally hated) but she asks the right questions to our leaders. EDIT: I wish downvoters would take the time to share their point of view.
  - mayniac 7y ago
    I just wrote up and deleted a comment on why you were wrong about the gilet jaunes "[not caring] about the environment" before re-reading your comment and realising you meant Macron's government doesn't care about the environment. I think that may be why you got downvoted.
toohotatopic 7y ago
Global heating is not on par with nuclear war. Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years, nuclear fallout is not. At worst many people will die but not the entire earth will be inhabitable. Keep in mind that earth cannot get worse than the last time all CO2 was in the atmosphere. Trees are younger than sharks. There was plenty of life when all CO2 was free. Somewhere in that environment will be space for life like the last time. Sharks and trees and many other animals and plants made it though that environment. And somewhere in that environment, there will be some space for humans because we will be adaptable. Instead, the biggest threat is AI. It's the new nuclear race. It will come as fast as human possible and it will have access to the most powerful weapons since any participant in that race will need that move to protect themselves. Unlike CO2, AI will add something to the system that wasn't there before. Its power will be unmatched and unlike humans, it won't miss any lost life-form.
- electricviolet 7y ago
  > Climate change is reversible in a couple hundred years That's optimistic. Climate change is potentially reversible, but it would involve large-scale geoengineering or carbon capture that we don't have the technology for yet. Developing and deploying that currently-nonexistent technology requires a stable, organized society. It's plausible that climate change could cause the breakdown of organized society before we're able to develop technology to reverse it.
  - toohotatopic 7y ago
    Don't forget the trees. Maybe it's a couple of thousand years, but let them roam earth and the CO2 is gone, like the last time. Since bacteria is digesting cellulose this time, we can't rely on earth to fold over old wood. Instead, humans will have to manage the storage. But that should be doable, given the speed with which we can harvest forests.
  - to11mtm 7y ago
    I wish I could remember the name of the plant... But there's some tree that grows like a freaking weed and is amazing for carbon sequestration. I feel like even having 'more' trees again would be helpful; where my family grew up, over the years all the big/old trees that were in people's yards were never replaced as they went away.

Daishiman 7y ago

Sure, but necessarily, any informed person understands that it is by the largest existential risk of humanity.

minikites 7y ago
Lots of people don't believe it's a problem or even claim it will be a benefit and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
- lukifer 7y ago
  I'm reminded of Kubrick's quote about the atom bomb[0]: "People react primarily to direct experience and not to abstractions; it is very rare to find anyone who can become emotionally involved with an abstraction. The longer the bomb is around without anything happening, the better the job that people do in psychologically denying its existence. It has become as abstract as the fact that we are all going to die someday, which we usually do an excellent job of denying." A disturbing corollary: the same challenge of processing an abstraction exists amongst most non-experts who accept AGW (and I'm among them). Hence symbolic gestures (banning straws), conflation with other sacred-cow political issues (corporate capitalism), belief in looming extinction (unlikely; the threat is to civilization, not homo sapiens), all generally filtered through a "purity" moral matrix (to put it in Haidt-ian terms). As the complex reality becomes filtered through moralizing and politicizing, the other side digs in their heels for predictable tribalist and game-theoretic reasons. It's a truly wicked problem. [0]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1966/11/12/how-about-a-little-game https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1966/11/12/how-about-a-li...
- imtringued 7y ago
  I don't understand this sentiment. After years of stagnation at around 911 million tons of CO2 Germany managed to reduce carbon emissions by 40 million tons in 2019 alone. The only thing that changed was a spike in the price of EU CO2 certificates which resulted in less electricity being produced from coal. It's absurd that this incredible progress is held back by the fear of losing 20k coal jobs when the reality is that those 20k coal jobs prevented the creation of hundreds of thousands in the renewable energy sector. Even if you think the whole thing is a scam you see that having a grand mission to invest in modern technology is an incredibly effective jobs program just like sending people to the moon. Nobody has gone to the moon again but we still benefit from all the research from that era.