5 ms·

The next decade is going to be wild. We will start to really see the effects of climate change. Real consequences for every day lives in the western world. Pre

The next decade is going to be wild. We will start to really see the effects of climate change. Real consequences for every day lives in the western world. Prepare for erratic weather. Storm's coming.

chippy 6y ago
as an environmentalist, we've been saying this since the 70's. As an educator I'd caution against fear as a motivation for societal change, but I understand that many think that its good to cause fear and panic for the benefit of the globe and everyone on it (after all, we teach children to be afraid of dangerous things).
- iagovar 6y ago
  You've saying this since the 70s, how much change on people minds did you achieve without fear?
  - chippy 6y ago
    Great question - equally so: how much change on people minds did you achieve with fear? The answer to both is that we need to do something different.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      Fear becomes a greater motivator to action the more proximate the source of the fear is. Thus as the effects of climate change become more extreme and apparent the efficacy of fear to spur action increases.
    - paulcole 6y ago
      Look at what the fear of another 9/11 was able to accomplish. I still have to take off my shoes at the airport! And look at what “masks protect other people” accomplished. 40% of the American population gleefully advertising that they don’t care about other people. You don’t have to change people’s minds if you can change their actions.
      - jeltz 6y ago
        And how does people taking off their shoes make air travel any safer? I do not see how your example supports using fear as a tool to drive useful change.
        paulcole 6y ago
        I’m just making the point that creating a state of fear is a good opportunity to push through change in society. Whether the change is effective or not is another question entirely. Do you think if the US government had said, “we’re going to ask you nicely to take off your shoes at the airport so your neighbor’s grandma doesn’t get blown up?” that would’ve gotten people to take their shoes off?
        DougWebb 6y ago
        They said "You're taking your shoes off, otherwise you're not going to fly today, you're going to get locked in a small room while we go through everything you've got with you and endlessly question you." It's not fear of terrorists that changed behavior, it's the threat of overwhelming government power used against you to cause massive inconvenience at best, and unjust imprisonment at worst.
    - titzer 6y ago
      I agree, we need to vigorously oppose climate denial, get money out of politics, and seriously reconsider if market economies are able to deliver sustainable lifestyles at all.
NewHereBeNice 6y ago
Your statement has no basis in scientific fact whatsoever. The timeline for severe consequential effects of climate change are a hundred years away. Your hysteria only damages the climate change cause, because in 10 years time people will use proclamations such as yours to deny climate science.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  I don’t know what you are considering severe, but I think that both Australia and California might disagree with you after the fires last year.
  - lazide 6y ago
    As a long time Californian with non commercial timberland? Global warming, if It played a part in those fires, played a small one. The biggest issues are failed forest management practices combined with expansion and development into previously undeveloped land. As part of 4+ Year process to get my timberland thinned to reduce fire danger (through the state approval process which is terrible, but finally happened), it came up that historically - based on archeological data - fires used to happen in this area every 10 to 15 years. It has been 115 years since a fire happened on the property. Massive buildup of fuel (due to suppressing small Fires and not allowing cutting or timber harvesting), combined with many people living and using power equipment in an area that historically was thinly populated means massive fires when they do happen. Which is what you saw.
hyko 6y ago
I understand your sentiment, but most westerner’s everyday lives will not be affected by climate change this decade, outside of government initiatives to help solve the problem. That’s why it’s so damn unfair: it’s the poorest people in the world that will bear the early burden. It’s my opinion that if we give people in the west unrealistic timelines, it will only serve to undermine the political effort to solve the issues for the long term.
- ciceryadam 6y ago
  European heatwave of 2003 resulted in 50-70k deaths [0]. It will be chump change in comparison of having uninhabitable regions of South East Asia when the wet bulb temperature reaches 35C (95F), but it already affects Western Europe. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
  - hyko 6y ago
    Yes, but most of the hundreds of millions of westerners (US, Western Europe, Australasia) are unlikely to experience real consequences for everyday life from climate change in a wild ride this decade. That’s for all sorts of reasons, principally economic and geographic.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      You don't consider death, drought, and flooding real consequences? Why not? The insurance industries already disagree with you. Trying getting flood insurance in some parts of the UK now. It wouldn't have been a problem thirty years now, now it's impossible. And try selling a house that can't be insured. But perhaps you don't think losing that kind of capital investment isn't a real consequence for everyday life?
      - michaelcampbell 6y ago
        He said most, not all. You even said your self "some parts".
refurb 6y ago
Do you have a source that lays out why this decade versus 2000 or 2010 will “be wild”?

chippy 6y ago

as an environmentalist, we've been saying this since the 70's. As an educator I'd caution against fear as a motivation for societal change, but I understand that many think that its good to cause fear and panic for the benefit of the globe and everyone on it (after all, we teach children to be afraid of dangerous things).

iagovar 6y ago
You've saying this since the 70s, how much change on people minds did you achieve without fear?
- chippy 6y ago
  Great question - equally so: how much change on people minds did you achieve with fear? The answer to both is that we need to do something different.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    Fear becomes a greater motivator to action the more proximate the source of the fear is. Thus as the effects of climate change become more extreme and apparent the efficacy of fear to spur action increases.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    Look at what the fear of another 9/11 was able to accomplish. I still have to take off my shoes at the airport! And look at what “masks protect other people” accomplished. 40% of the American population gleefully advertising that they don’t care about other people. You don’t have to change people’s minds if you can change their actions.
    - jeltz 6y ago
      And how does people taking off their shoes make air travel any safer? I do not see how your example supports using fear as a tool to drive useful change.
      - paulcole 6y ago
        I’m just making the point that creating a state of fear is a good opportunity to push through change in society. Whether the change is effective or not is another question entirely. Do you think if the US government had said, “we’re going to ask you nicely to take off your shoes at the airport so your neighbor’s grandma doesn’t get blown up?” that would’ve gotten people to take their shoes off?
        DougWebb 6y ago
        They said "You're taking your shoes off, otherwise you're not going to fly today, you're going to get locked in a small room while we go through everything you've got with you and endlessly question you." It's not fear of terrorists that changed behavior, it's the threat of overwhelming government power used against you to cause massive inconvenience at best, and unjust imprisonment at worst.
  - titzer 6y ago
    I agree, we need to vigorously oppose climate denial, get money out of politics, and seriously reconsider if market economies are able to deliver sustainable lifestyles at all.

NewHereBeNice 6y ago

Your statement has no basis in scientific fact whatsoever. The timeline for severe consequential effects of climate change are a hundred years away. Your hysteria only damages the climate change cause, because in 10 years time people will use proclamations such as yours to deny climate science.

Ma8ee 6y ago
I don’t know what you are considering severe, but I think that both Australia and California might disagree with you after the fires last year.
- lazide 6y ago
  As a long time Californian with non commercial timberland? Global warming, if It played a part in those fires, played a small one. The biggest issues are failed forest management practices combined with expansion and development into previously undeveloped land. As part of 4+ Year process to get my timberland thinned to reduce fire danger (through the state approval process which is terrible, but finally happened), it came up that historically - based on archeological data - fires used to happen in this area every 10 to 15 years. It has been 115 years since a fire happened on the property. Massive buildup of fuel (due to suppressing small Fires and not allowing cutting or timber harvesting), combined with many people living and using power equipment in an area that historically was thinly populated means massive fires when they do happen. Which is what you saw.

hyko 6y ago

I understand your sentiment, but most westerner’s everyday lives will not be affected by climate change this decade, outside of government initiatives to help solve the problem. That’s why it’s so damn unfair: it’s the poorest people in the world that will bear the early burden. It’s my opinion that if we give people in the west unrealistic timelines, it will only serve to undermine the political effort to solve the issues for the long term.

ciceryadam 6y ago
European heatwave of 2003 resulted in 50-70k deaths [0]. It will be chump change in comparison of having uninhabitable regions of South East Asia when the wet bulb temperature reaches 35C (95F), but it already affects Western Europe. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
- hyko 6y ago
  Yes, but most of the hundreds of millions of westerners (US, Western Europe, Australasia) are unlikely to experience real consequences for everyday life from climate change in a wild ride this decade. That’s for all sorts of reasons, principally economic and geographic.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    You don't consider death, drought, and flooding real consequences? Why not? The insurance industries already disagree with you. Trying getting flood insurance in some parts of the UK now. It wouldn't have been a problem thirty years now, now it's impossible. And try selling a house that can't be insured. But perhaps you don't think losing that kind of capital investment isn't a real consequence for everyday life?
    - michaelcampbell 6y ago
      He said most, not all. You even said your self "some parts".

refurb 6y ago

Do you have a source that lays out why this decade versus 2000 or 2010 will “be wild”?