3 ms·

I wonder if it’d be better to not try and prevent global warming, but instead spend money and research on preparing for it. Can someone tell me why this is a te

by exdsq 6y ago

I wonder if it’d be better to not try and prevent global warming, but instead spend money and research on preparing for it. Can someone tell me why this is a terrible idea?

wkrsz 6y ago
That's large part of what Bjorn Lomborg is advocating: https://www.lomborg.com https://www.lomborg.com
atleta 6y ago
Because all the climate models say that it's a terrible idea to let it completely loose. They even predict that it's a pretty bad idea not to do a lot more than what we are doing now. Given the current state of matters, whatever we do it will be at least in part preparation for the changed climate and in part preventing getting things worse.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Benjamin Franklin
marcinzm 6y ago
Civilization is build around the existing climate and the cost of re-building around a new climate will be very very large. For example, most cities are near bodies of water and rising sea water will threaten them. So we have to either move a lot of cities (to now scarcer land) or build massive walls around them (that need to survive hurricanes in many areas). There's also thing we don't fully control like the ecosystem (fishing, pollinating insects, etc.) that would be very hard (read: expensive) to rebuild if it collapses and would probably have second order effects we'd also need to adjust for. Then there's any health issues from things like high CO2 which would probably require mass scale genetic engineering to really deal with.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  "Civilization is build around the existing climate and the cost of re-building around a new climate will be very very large" But the climate will change over decades and centuries. People move, nation's build and rebuild, and crops change over centuries, climate change or not. Think how different the world and human diet was in 1900 compared to today. I think a lot of people look at climate change as a war, where bullets start flying and suddenly there are 20 million refugees at your door. Climate change is slow and incremental, at least as currently predicted.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Why do you think people will slowly react over decades rather than putting things off until the last possible moment when they have no choice but to adjust very quickly? If humanity could plan over decades without short term need driving them then climate change wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      You don't need to plan decades in advance to switch out one crop for another between growing seasons or to build a seawall.
a_humean 6y ago
Its too late to "prevent" global warming. We had our chance in the 80s and 90s. We are now at stage of mitigation and trying to curve the trend away from the worst case scenario ("just" 2C warming instead of 4C). If we don't change track then its projected by end of the century large parts of the world will be simply uninhabitable for human populations (wet bulb temperature too high, desertification, and flooding) leading to the displacement of billions of people. The cost of fighting global warming is orders of magnitude less than letting to go completely out of control.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  The UN Climate Panel finds that if we do nothing, the total impact of climate in the 2070s will be equivalent to reducing incomes by 0.2-2 percent. Given that by then, each person is expected to be 363 percent as rich as today, climate change means we will “only” be 356 percent as rich. Meanwhile, the US wants to spend $500 billion per year and the EU 25% of all government revenue on fighting it, annually. You sure that's orders of magnitude difference?
akudha 6y ago
Shouldn’t we do both?
missedthecue 6y ago
Adaptation is definitely the better idea. One good reason that it's superior to prevention is that it doesn't suffer from the externality problem. Me reducing my carbon output is a cost to me and a benefit to everyone else. On the other hand, me preparing for climate change is a cost to me but the benefits are also to me. To effectively prevent climate change, we have to get every country on board with reducing emissions. 1/3 or 1/2 of the countries is good, but won't prevent it. Add in the additional fact that some countries such as Russia benefit from a warming climate and any plans for prevention quickly deteriorate. There is just no good way to ensure long term (100+ year) global coordination.

by exdsq 6y ago

I wonder if it’d be better to not try and prevent global warming, but instead spend money and research on preparing for it. Can someone tell me why this is a terrible idea?

wkrsz 6y ago

That's large part of what Bjorn Lomborg is advocating: https://www.lomborg.com https://www.lomborg.com

atleta 6y ago

Because all the climate models say that it's a terrible idea to let it completely loose. They even predict that it's a pretty bad idea not to do a lot more than what we are doing now. Given the current state of matters, whatever we do it will be at least in part preparation for the changed climate and in part preventing getting things worse.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Benjamin Franklin

marcinzm 6y ago

Civilization is build around the existing climate and the cost of re-building around a new climate will be very very large. For example, most cities are near bodies of water and rising sea water will threaten them. So we have to either move a lot of cities (to now scarcer land) or build massive walls around them (that need to survive hurricanes in many areas). There's also thing we don't fully control like the ecosystem (fishing, pollinating insects, etc.) that would be very hard (read: expensive) to rebuild if it collapses and would probably have second order effects we'd also need to adjust for. Then there's any health issues from things like high CO2 which would probably require mass scale genetic engineering to really deal with.

missedthecue 6y ago
"Civilization is build around the existing climate and the cost of re-building around a new climate will be very very large" But the climate will change over decades and centuries. People move, nation's build and rebuild, and crops change over centuries, climate change or not. Think how different the world and human diet was in 1900 compared to today. I think a lot of people look at climate change as a war, where bullets start flying and suddenly there are 20 million refugees at your door. Climate change is slow and incremental, at least as currently predicted.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Why do you think people will slowly react over decades rather than putting things off until the last possible moment when they have no choice but to adjust very quickly? If humanity could plan over decades without short term need driving them then climate change wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    You don't need to plan decades in advance to switch out one crop for another between growing seasons or to build a seawall.

a_humean 6y ago

Its too late to "prevent" global warming. We had our chance in the 80s and 90s. We are now at stage of mitigation and trying to curve the trend away from the worst case scenario ("just" 2C warming instead of 4C). If we don't change track then its projected by end of the century large parts of the world will be simply uninhabitable for human populations (wet bulb temperature too high, desertification, and flooding) leading to the displacement of billions of people. The cost of fighting global warming is orders of magnitude less than letting to go completely out of control.

missedthecue 6y ago
The UN Climate Panel finds that if we do nothing, the total impact of climate in the 2070s will be equivalent to reducing incomes by 0.2-2 percent. Given that by then, each person is expected to be 363 percent as rich as today, climate change means we will “only” be 356 percent as rich. Meanwhile, the US wants to spend $500 billion per year and the EU 25% of all government revenue on fighting it, annually. You sure that's orders of magnitude difference?

akudha 6y ago

Shouldn’t we do both?

missedthecue 6y ago

Adaptation is definitely the better idea. One good reason that it's superior to prevention is that it doesn't suffer from the externality problem. Me reducing my carbon output is a cost to me and a benefit to everyone else. On the other hand, me preparing for climate change is a cost to me but the benefits are also to me. To effectively prevent climate change, we have to get every country on board with reducing emissions. 1/3 or 1/2 of the countries is good, but won't prevent it. Add in the additional fact that some countries such as Russia benefit from a warming climate and any plans for prevention quickly deteriorate. There is just no good way to ensure long term (100+ year) global coordination.