4 ms·
Fisheries across Alaska are really struggling. It is striking how climate change affects the economy of Alaska today. Another article: https://www.npr.org/2019
by philips 6y ago
Fisheries across Alaska are really struggling. It is striking how climate change affects the economy of Alaska today.
Another article: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/08/785634169/alaska-cod-fishery-closes-and-industry-braces-for-ripple-effect https://www.npr.org/2019/12/08/785634169/alaska-cod-fishery-...
- Udik 6y agoOil and gas still provide 1/3 of all jobs in Alaska. What is striking is how much climate change has contributed to the economy of Alaska.
- paulintrognon 6y agoWell that's also true on a world scale. Oil & gas are both our best friends and worst enemies. (On this topic I recommend VlogBrother's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibg1-0gfwjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibg1-0gfwjI)
- ceejayoz 6y agoSure. Setting your kitchen on fire warms your house, for a bit. It's not a great long-term plan, though.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoUnfortunately, planning for the long term makes you uncompetitive on the nation state scale in the short term, which can threaten the nation state’s survival/prosperity.
- thecureforzits 6y agoThat's the tragedy of capitalism.
- anewdirection 6y agoI am not sure how a different system would have changed things. Look at russia, half the middle east, etc. Not exactly the common definition of capitolist. Producing energy is about the most productive thing a country can do for its people, no matter its politics of distribution. The fact is that petroleum is/was the most efficient way to do that. Science first, then you can drag out your personal politics.
- ryder9 6y agoexcept.. russia is an oligarchy.. middle east is mostly a dictatorship; i don't think you know what capitalism means, it's an economic system, not a system of governance
- KineticLensman 6y agoHe's saying that capitalist or not, "Producing energy is about the most productive thing a country can do for its people, no matter its politics of distribution".
- Udik 6y agoWith temperatures hardly going above zero for five months each year and easily reaching -40C in some parts, I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels. There are certainly better ways to produce the energy we need, and I can only hope we'll find them soon; but let's not forget how much we owe to fossil fuels: probably most people on earth owe their very existence to them; discounting them just as a bad and shortsighted idea isn't really a fair assessment.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> I doubt many people would call it home at all without the help of fossil fuels. Is uninhabited land inherently a bad thing?
- Udik 6y agoNot at all. Now just go and tell the Alaskans that they can move out because you don't think that making their land uninhabited is "inherently a bad thing".
- ceejayoz 6y agoPeople moved en masse out of the Rust Belt when that economy changed. Parts of Alaska will be the same as we move away from fossil fuels.
- Udik 6y agoThen if it's fine I don't see the problem of "setting your kitchen on fire" for a century or so. When it's over you can always move and return the land to its uninhabited state. Right?
- ceejayoz 6y ago1. To extend the metaphor a bit, the risk with climate change is burning down the entire neighborhood. 2. You can't really put the carbon back that easily.