19 ms·

It's amazing how many comments here are as optimistic about climate change as they were about coronavirus in early February. Climate change and the pandemic ar

It's amazing how many comments here are as optimistic about climate change as they were about coronavirus in early February. Climate change and the pandemic are very similar processes. The are both extreme events that are easy to predict existentially (yes both will happen) but hard to specify exactly when they will unfold. They are both theoretically preventable, but require initial economic damage very early on to do so. Both cause major systemic economic damage, with long lasting consequences. But pandemic is milder in every imaginable way. Pandemic has more immediate evidence that it is happening, it can be dealt with in a much shorter time span (months rather than years or decades), the total economic damage is far less, and the time to recovery from the pandemic is less (it might take years but climate change will take much longer to adapt to). So in every major way pandemic is a toy exercise for how to handle climate change and we are failing that test spectacularly and still the response to climate changes is largely "don't worry, we'll figure it out, we have time and solutions..." As the economic damage from this starts to really unfold remember that this is the change in our way of life to get 8% So imagine the change in life style and economic damage required to get to 75%, and then keep in mind that that is still preferable to the economic damage we will likely see from a +2 C global warming. I suspect climate change discussions will die down after the pandemic because it's to much to really face the reality of what it will mean. People want to return to normal, spend money and co2 again.

cmarschner 6y ago
Merkel has called for using the changes necessary to get out of this recession to invest in sustainable tech, and has called for targeting CO2 reductions on the aggressive end.
- Qub3d 6y ago
  Too bad her country as a whole is killing Nuclear power then, given its the best short-term path to cutting CO2. [0]:https://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-is-germanys-nuclear-phase-out/a-18547065 https://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-is-germanys-nuclear-phas...
  - jamil7 6y ago
    At this point in time it doesn't make any economical sense for Germnay to invest in nuclear power, the source you linked confirms that.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  It's easy to make broad vague philosophical promises. They are meaningless without a plan, legislation, and a budget. How many empty promises have we heard from various politicians with zero follow-through? When will we learn to tune-out this political BS?
  - cmarschner 6y ago
    It is completely in line with the plans and roadmap of the EU comission about an EU green deal, for which concrete programs, money allocation etc. exists; Climate policy is hard - it‘s always easier to call for exploiting external costs for short-term GDP gain. Yet it is good to see that there is a critical mass of sustainability policies in the EU. It is our only way to survive.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Something that is "in line" with a funded program, is not itself funded. It's not PART of the EU Green Deal. Moreover, the EU Green Deal is a PROPOSAL. It itself has not passed nor has it received any funding. Look at the timeline here... https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro... Again, people are praising and being praised for programs and plans that don't exist. This constant political circlejerk that never seems to culminate in real action.
twomoretime 6y ago
>But pandemic is milder in every imaginable way Ok, sorry, but this is just hysteria. A deadly pandemic is in absolutely no way milder than climate change. Climate change will see the occasionally bad storm, gradually more frequent flooding, and displacement of a minority of the global population from the coast over a period of >1 century. People will gradually move inland and rebuild. Economies may shift over time, power structures wax and wane, etc - the point is it will feel mild because it will happen on a large timescale. This is far less deserving of early mitigation strategies than a global pandemic which is killing potentially millions of people in the span of a few months. The two levels of danger are simply incomperable. >Both cause major systemic economic damage, with long lasting consequences. I hear this perspective a lot, but I think it's flawed fearmongering. The gradual nature of climate change is such that the "damage" will be indiscernible from normal turnover maybe increased by a couple percent on average per year as storms and floodings increase in frequency. If anything, this could be a perpetual infrastructure stimulus. That's even if it happens on a short enough scale to matter. The anticipated timeline (and carnage) is not and cannot be proven and given that we are dealing with geologic timescales, it will likely be at hundreds of years at an absolute minimum.
- paulintrognon 6y ago
  If it is hysteria, why do you think most world countries signed the Paris agreement to keep global warming below 2° Celsius?
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    The fact that it's a consensus does not mean that it's not hysterical. How can anyone have faith in these governments/organizations after we just watched this global failure to deal with covid?
    - cmarschner 6y ago
      I think we haven‘t seen global failure, we have seen how different governments have come up with different solutions to protect their people. It seems that those with recent experience of handling epidemics (like MERS) have fared much better than those who haven‘t. This is simply a learning curve effect - if a pandemic were to happen again in the next 10 years, responses would be much more swift and also more consistent; it is dependent on the resistence if the healthcare system - state-run systems have much scarcer resources than other systems, decentralized systems are more resistant than centralized ones; it seems dependent on how much policy is influenced by science; populist leaders seem to fare quite badly; and finally it‘s probably a good thing to have a female leader on top.
Anka33 6y ago
No! Climate change is a scam to make money. Corona is an biological attack by China on the west.
justaguyhere 6y ago
Pakistan is putting tens of thousands of people to work (who would otherwise have no job now) planting billions of trees. My hope is that other governments will follow similar initiatives, if covid-19 lasts a few months (it looks like it is not going away anytime soon) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-workers-hired-plant-trees-200429070109237.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-...
papermachete 6y ago
People want to live their lives and let politicians handle global warming, as it should be.

cmarschner 6y ago

Merkel has called for using the changes necessary to get out of this recession to invest in sustainable tech, and has called for targeting CO2 reductions on the aggressive end.

Qub3d 6y ago
Too bad her country as a whole is killing Nuclear power then, given its the best short-term path to cutting CO2. [0]:https://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-is-germanys-nuclear-phase-out/a-18547065 https://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-is-germanys-nuclear-phas...
- jamil7 6y ago
  At this point in time it doesn't make any economical sense for Germnay to invest in nuclear power, the source you linked confirms that.
koheripbal 6y ago
It's easy to make broad vague philosophical promises. They are meaningless without a plan, legislation, and a budget. How many empty promises have we heard from various politicians with zero follow-through? When will we learn to tune-out this political BS?
- cmarschner 6y ago
  It is completely in line with the plans and roadmap of the EU comission about an EU green deal, for which concrete programs, money allocation etc. exists; Climate policy is hard - it‘s always easier to call for exploiting external costs for short-term GDP gain. Yet it is good to see that there is a critical mass of sustainability policies in the EU. It is our only way to survive.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Something that is "in line" with a funded program, is not itself funded. It's not PART of the EU Green Deal. Moreover, the EU Green Deal is a PROPOSAL. It itself has not passed nor has it received any funding. Look at the timeline here... https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro... Again, people are praising and being praised for programs and plans that don't exist. This constant political circlejerk that never seems to culminate in real action.

twomoretime 6y ago

>But pandemic is milder in every imaginable way Ok, sorry, but this is just hysteria. A deadly pandemic is in absolutely no way milder than climate change. Climate change will see the occasionally bad storm, gradually more frequent flooding, and displacement of a minority of the global population from the coast over a period of >1 century. People will gradually move inland and rebuild. Economies may shift over time, power structures wax and wane, etc - the point is it will feel mild because it will happen on a large timescale. This is far less deserving of early mitigation strategies than a global pandemic which is killing potentially millions of people in the span of a few months. The two levels of danger are simply incomperable. >Both cause major systemic economic damage, with long lasting consequences. I hear this perspective a lot, but I think it's flawed fearmongering. The gradual nature of climate change is such that the "damage" will be indiscernible from normal turnover maybe increased by a couple percent on average per year as storms and floodings increase in frequency. If anything, this could be a perpetual infrastructure stimulus. That's even if it happens on a short enough scale to matter. The anticipated timeline (and carnage) is not and cannot be proven and given that we are dealing with geologic timescales, it will likely be at hundreds of years at an absolute minimum.

paulintrognon 6y ago
If it is hysteria, why do you think most world countries signed the Paris agreement to keep global warming below 2° Celsius?
- twomoretime 6y ago
  The fact that it's a consensus does not mean that it's not hysterical. How can anyone have faith in these governments/organizations after we just watched this global failure to deal with covid?
  - cmarschner 6y ago
    I think we haven‘t seen global failure, we have seen how different governments have come up with different solutions to protect their people. It seems that those with recent experience of handling epidemics (like MERS) have fared much better than those who haven‘t. This is simply a learning curve effect - if a pandemic were to happen again in the next 10 years, responses would be much more swift and also more consistent; it is dependent on the resistence if the healthcare system - state-run systems have much scarcer resources than other systems, decentralized systems are more resistant than centralized ones; it seems dependent on how much policy is influenced by science; populist leaders seem to fare quite badly; and finally it‘s probably a good thing to have a female leader on top.

Anka33 6y ago

No! Climate change is a scam to make money. Corona is an biological attack by China on the west.

justaguyhere 6y ago

Pakistan is putting tens of thousands of people to work (who would otherwise have no job now) planting billions of trees. My hope is that other governments will follow similar initiatives, if covid-19 lasts a few months (it looks like it is not going away anytime soon) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-workers-hired-plant-trees-200429070109237.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/pakistan-virus-idled-...

papermachete 6y ago

People want to live their lives and let politicians handle global warming, as it should be.