5 ms·

Its so sad but so human that this just seems to be ignored in large part. If we knew a massive war would come and kill a huge portion of the earths population i

Its so sad but so human that this just seems to be ignored in large part. If we knew a massive war would come and kill a huge portion of the earths population in the next 50-100 years would we react any better?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
It’s not comparable to a massive war killing a huge portion of people. That’s a more immediate, visible consequence that is clear on how to avoid. It’s a slow moving extra/unpredictable hurricane/drought/monsoon/heat wave/cold snap that gradually reduces quality of life year after year, with no clear solution to prevent it and still enjoy all the modern trappings of life.
- tzs 6y ago
  War might be one of the consequences of climate change. India and Pakistan both depend heavily on Himalayan glaciers for their fresh water (as do several other countries). Those glaciers are rapidly shrinking due to climate change. It is not implausible that this could lead to war over control of the dwindling fresh glacial water. And they both have nukes. They don't have the really big nukes that the big nuclear powers have, but it doesn't take big nukes to cause a worldwide catastrophe. This paper [1] (article about that paper here [2]) looks at the effect of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India with an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-size nukes between them (about 1/3 of their total arsenals) directed at their 100 most populated areas. The nukes are of course devastating to those in the area they hit, but it is the firestorms that follow that are bad for the rest of the world. Based on the amount of combustible material in those regions, the paper estimates about 1.5 Tg of soot aerosol would end up in the upper atmosphere. They used climate models to analyze that, and come up with a 1.8 C temperature reduction and 8% precipitation reduction for several years. They then used state of the art crop models to estimate the effect that would have on food crops. They found that the strongest effects would be in temperate regions of the US, Europe, and China for 10-15 years. It would not be a collapse of civilization type event, but it would result in a decade or more of serious food shortages worldwide which would probably kill a lot of people. And since it would not just be hitting the poor, undeveloped countries like the usual famines do nowadays, it could trigger more wars involving the countries that do have the large arsenals of much much bigger nukes than India and Pakistan have. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 [2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-bring-global-famine/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-...
  - eloff 6y ago
    I agree with the assessment of the risks that you present, but I disagree with this: > but it would result in a decade or more of serious food shortages worldwide which would probably kill a lot of people. And since it would not just be hitting the poor, undeveloped countries. If the price of food goes up dramatically because of a shortage, this affects poor countries the most. They won't be able to afford food at those prices. If the country is a net exporter of food, which is not that common for poor counties, they could implement export restrictions, effectively subsidising local food prices. But where that doesn't happen, rich countries will effectively be buying food from them while they starve. Most of the food exporters are rich countries. They will export less or not at all due to lower production. Poor counties will get the worst end of it, as usual.
pjc50 6y ago
The recent pandemic has convinced me that that war would have more than its fair share of denialists and even cheerleaders.
rland 6y ago
No, not even a massive war. Remember that in the 1960s this was the consensus between policymakers and the public -- that there was a very real chance that the entire world would be annihilated by global thermonuclear war. What did we do? Doubled down and continued building nukes. We are completely fucked on this. If you don't hear that O&G companies are stopping the drilling machines, "X will stop climate change" is a lie and a farce.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

It’s not comparable to a massive war killing a huge portion of people. That’s a more immediate, visible consequence that is clear on how to avoid. It’s a slow moving extra/unpredictable hurricane/drought/monsoon/heat wave/cold snap that gradually reduces quality of life year after year, with no clear solution to prevent it and still enjoy all the modern trappings of life.

tzs 6y ago
War might be one of the consequences of climate change. India and Pakistan both depend heavily on Himalayan glaciers for their fresh water (as do several other countries). Those glaciers are rapidly shrinking due to climate change. It is not implausible that this could lead to war over control of the dwindling fresh glacial water. And they both have nukes. They don't have the really big nukes that the big nuclear powers have, but it doesn't take big nukes to cause a worldwide catastrophe. This paper [1] (article about that paper here [2]) looks at the effect of a nuclear war between Pakistan and India with an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-size nukes between them (about 1/3 of their total arsenals) directed at their 100 most populated areas. The nukes are of course devastating to those in the area they hit, but it is the firestorms that follow that are bad for the rest of the world. Based on the amount of combustible material in those regions, the paper estimates about 1.5 Tg of soot aerosol would end up in the upper atmosphere. They used climate models to analyze that, and come up with a 1.8 C temperature reduction and 8% precipitation reduction for several years. They then used state of the art crop models to estimate the effect that would have on food crops. They found that the strongest effects would be in temperate regions of the US, Europe, and China for 10-15 years. It would not be a collapse of civilization type event, but it would result in a decade or more of serious food shortages worldwide which would probably kill a lot of people. And since it would not just be hitting the poor, undeveloped countries like the usual famines do nowadays, it could trigger more wars involving the countries that do have the large arsenals of much much bigger nukes than India and Pakistan have. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071 [2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-bring-global-famine/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-...
- eloff 6y ago
  I agree with the assessment of the risks that you present, but I disagree with this: > but it would result in a decade or more of serious food shortages worldwide which would probably kill a lot of people. And since it would not just be hitting the poor, undeveloped countries. If the price of food goes up dramatically because of a shortage, this affects poor countries the most. They won't be able to afford food at those prices. If the country is a net exporter of food, which is not that common for poor counties, they could implement export restrictions, effectively subsidising local food prices. But where that doesn't happen, rich countries will effectively be buying food from them while they starve. Most of the food exporters are rich countries. They will export less or not at all due to lower production. Poor counties will get the worst end of it, as usual.

pjc50 6y ago

The recent pandemic has convinced me that that war would have more than its fair share of denialists and even cheerleaders.

rland 6y ago

No, not even a massive war. Remember that in the 1960s this was the consensus between policymakers and the public -- that there was a very real chance that the entire world would be annihilated by global thermonuclear war. What did we do? Doubled down and continued building nukes. We are completely fucked on this. If you don't hear that O&G companies are stopping the drilling machines, "X will stop climate change" is a lie and a farce.