4 ms·

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 a

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.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      You have to make sure the tree never rots or burns. And the only way to do that is to bury it deep underground or freeze it in an iceberg.
      - chrisweekly 7y ago
        Or leave it alone to live and thrive, with the downside you have to be willing to tolerate its side effects, eg producing shade and wildlife habitat and oxygen and medicines and beauty and other things nobody wants.

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.
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    You have to make sure the tree never rots or burns. And the only way to do that is to bury it deep underground or freeze it in an iceberg.
    - chrisweekly 7y ago
      Or leave it alone to live and thrive, with the downside you have to be willing to tolerate its side effects, eg producing shade and wildlife habitat and oxygen and medicines and beauty and other things nobody wants.