4 ms·

It's too late to fight emissions. It's time to build flood defenses and irrigation systems and move cities north...

• hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  You're being downvoted, but I think there is some truth to what you are saying: 1. Humans have shown time and again that they simply aren't capable of the global wide self-sacrifice that would be required now to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Just look at a chart for global greenhouse gas emissions over time. The only time you even see a slight reduction is when there is a massive global recession or pandemic. We basically need about "2 or 3 pandemics-worth" of reductions annually to hit our goals. This just isn't going to happen. 2. That said, I think it will be possible to transition over to primarily renewables, but the main driver for this will be economic (solar and batteries are continuing to plummet in price). It will just take a long time (or, at least, longer than we really have) before this increase in renewables really starts to dent CO2 emissions. Thus, I think maintaining a focus on emissions is a good thing, because it will still help that transition to renewables happen faster. 3. Your second sentence is absolutely true though. I think at least a 3 meter sea level rise by 2100 is pretty unavoidable by now, and that will have a massive impact on coastal cities. Significant impacts from climate change are unavoidable at this point, so we should start planning for this.
• redisman 5y ago
  Why not both
  • LatteLazy 5y ago
    Well for the last 50 years we haven't had the budget/motivation to do meaningful emissions cuts. So the idea that now it's urgent that we do mitigation, we can split that budget/motivation seems... Hopeful.