6 ms·

Worst-case climate change is going to happen. It cannot be stopped, those with money and power are too powerful and have too much money to be opposed. Billions

Worst-case climate change is going to happen. It cannot be stopped, those with money and power are too powerful and have too much money to be opposed. Billions will die or suffer so a couple hundred can be absurdly wealthy. The only path I see going forward is waiting until climate change related disasters are extremely bad (loss of life on par or worse than COVID-19 in US/EU, every year, for probably a decade); then we will see massive government investment into carbon capture/sequestration (probably run by the oil/gas giants who caused this). This is what the world looks like in an age of regulatory capture.

dv_dt 5y ago
Even this could be considered part of the strategy to deny responsibility for climate change. Action now to replace fossil fuels can still have an effect, and will still end up as net benefit to our civilization and even still our economy.
bojangleslover 5y ago
>The only path I see going forward is waiting until climate change related disasters are extremely bad (loss of life on par or worse than COVID-19 in US/EU, every year, for probably a decade); Climate change is too gradual for that to happen. We will adapt faster than the mean temperature rises.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Globally, "adaptation" may involve a lot of wars, violence and poverty as natural and managed resources decline, especially in the worst areas but spilling elsewhere unpredictably. The greatest tragedy is climate will continue changing for some time after we take real action. And there is no obvious limit to the damage until we do take real action. By the time we do take real action, on all the compounding problems (degradation of the oceans, deforestation, etc.) we may be left with only hard choices of what to mitigate at terrible cost, but no viable complete solution to a massive painful drop in human population.
yodsanklai 5y ago
> Billions will die or suffer so a couple hundred can be absurdly wealthy I think the responsibility is shared here. Middle classes in developed countries are high CO2 emitters and aren't willing to change their ways of life, even though they are well aware of the problem.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  If countries put climate action to a simple democratic vote that simple view would make sense. But since our government organs and parties act as intermediaries, there are severe and opaque bottlenecks in the power chain that middle classes have little chance of controlling - without setting up an entirely separate but just as pervasive means of cooperating. Not likely without near 90% popular agreement. When powerful interests interfere and disrupt coordinated efforts to solve a problem, it is their moral burden. Not the average persons. The problem is our system has no mechanisms of systematic accountability for widespread public misinformation campaigns, or limits to political influence hampering progress.
_jal 5y ago
> those with money and power are too powerful and have too much money to be opposed I get the distinct impression some of them are planning on it happening, and their plans will be disrupted if it doesn't. > then we will see massive government investment into carbon capture/sequestration I rather suspect instead we will see massive investment in protection for the politically connected. Look at how things have gone historically in nations in decline - you don't get more consensus building and egalitarianism. Now repeat that when there's no sane nations left to immigrate to, because everyone went hard-xenophobe.
marcusverus 5y ago
To summarize: Climate change ---> rising seas ---> ??? ---> BILLIONS DEAD Can we not do this? Climate change is a serious concern. Divining billions of deaths from the tea leaves is unserious and makes the issue of climate change seem unserious.
- esturk 5y ago
  No one mentioned "rising seas" you added that in there. You could've add many more climate related disasters to the list such as hurricane, wildfire, cold snaps, heat waves, etc. The implication is still the same. Many WILL die. There's no doubt. Not sure why you're down playing it.
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    “Many will die” is a reasonable assumption. “Billions will die” is hysterical, indefensible nonsense—which was my point.
    - dTal 5y ago
      Billions could die. We're talking major ecosystem disruption here. We exist at the top of a very fragile web. We're seeing supply chain disruptions already, just from our own internal failure to get our shit together. Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off flooded cities, failing crops, dwindling fish stocks, and entire countries being rendered uninhabitable? It's not about the global survivability of the climate - it's what the shock will do to our own delicate social ecosystem. "Every society is three meals away from chaos".
      - marcusverus 5y ago
        > We're talking major ecosystem disruption here. We exist at the top of a very fragile web. The vast majority of our food comes from a small number of domesticated sources which aren't all that reliant on the 'fragile web'. 50% of plant food calories come from only corn, rice, and wheat. We only eat a handful of domesticated animals and fish. Is climate change going to kill off corn? Are chickens going to go extinct? Clearly ecosystem collapse and mass extinction would be an absolute catastrophe--but we don't hunt and gather for calories, we farm and ranch. There is no indication that climate change is going to render us unable to feed ourselves. > We're seeing supply chain disruptions already, just from our own internal failure to get our shit together. These supply chain disruptions have nothing to do with climate change, and to my knowledge they have not resulted in a single missed meal, let alone mass starvation. Probably because we're capable of triage--the most important stuff gets shipped first! > Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off flooded cities... and entire countries being rendered uninhabitable? When Katrina hit New Orleans, a million people evacuated overnight. During the Syrian civil war, millions of refugees were willingly absorbed into Europe. This year, the US is on pace to absorb ~2 million illegal immigrants. We as a society handle flash migration events on a regular basis. The changes that will occur due to climate change won't happen overnight--they'll happen over many decades. There is no reason to assume that billions die because of mass migrations. Mass migrations happen all the time, and we handle them just fine. > Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off... failing crops These changes won't happen overnight, either. People are perfectly capable of adapting to changes in climate--we've been doing it for 10,000 years. And now we have read/write access to the genomes of our staple crops! > Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off... dwindling fish stocks Fish are one of many sources of protein--they're not a staple. Dwindling fish stocks and even extinctions are likely, but nobody will starve due to a lack of access to fish. In summary, climate change will wreak havoc, sure. But the floor will not become lava overnight. We know what's coming, we have the ability to adapt, and we will.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Worst case is the planetary ecosystem falls apart from the bottom up. If pollinators die it's over. And it will be far too late fix the problem. It's basically an IQ test, and at the moment the species is far too dumb to pass.

dv_dt 5y ago

Even this could be considered part of the strategy to deny responsibility for climate change. Action now to replace fossil fuels can still have an effect, and will still end up as net benefit to our civilization and even still our economy.

bojangleslover 5y ago

>The only path I see going forward is waiting until climate change related disasters are extremely bad (loss of life on par or worse than COVID-19 in US/EU, every year, for probably a decade); Climate change is too gradual for that to happen. We will adapt faster than the mean temperature rises.

Nevermark 5y ago
Globally, "adaptation" may involve a lot of wars, violence and poverty as natural and managed resources decline, especially in the worst areas but spilling elsewhere unpredictably. The greatest tragedy is climate will continue changing for some time after we take real action. And there is no obvious limit to the damage until we do take real action. By the time we do take real action, on all the compounding problems (degradation of the oceans, deforestation, etc.) we may be left with only hard choices of what to mitigate at terrible cost, but no viable complete solution to a massive painful drop in human population.

yodsanklai 5y ago

> Billions will die or suffer so a couple hundred can be absurdly wealthy I think the responsibility is shared here. Middle classes in developed countries are high CO2 emitters and aren't willing to change their ways of life, even though they are well aware of the problem.

Nevermark 5y ago
If countries put climate action to a simple democratic vote that simple view would make sense. But since our government organs and parties act as intermediaries, there are severe and opaque bottlenecks in the power chain that middle classes have little chance of controlling - without setting up an entirely separate but just as pervasive means of cooperating. Not likely without near 90% popular agreement. When powerful interests interfere and disrupt coordinated efforts to solve a problem, it is their moral burden. Not the average persons. The problem is our system has no mechanisms of systematic accountability for widespread public misinformation campaigns, or limits to political influence hampering progress.

_jal 5y ago

> those with money and power are too powerful and have too much money to be opposed I get the distinct impression some of them are planning on it happening, and their plans will be disrupted if it doesn't. > then we will see massive government investment into carbon capture/sequestration I rather suspect instead we will see massive investment in protection for the politically connected. Look at how things have gone historically in nations in decline - you don't get more consensus building and egalitarianism. Now repeat that when there's no sane nations left to immigrate to, because everyone went hard-xenophobe.

marcusverus 5y ago

To summarize: Climate change ---> rising seas ---> ??? ---> BILLIONS DEAD Can we not do this? Climate change is a serious concern. Divining billions of deaths from the tea leaves is unserious and makes the issue of climate change seem unserious.

esturk 5y ago
No one mentioned "rising seas" you added that in there. You could've add many more climate related disasters to the list such as hurricane, wildfire, cold snaps, heat waves, etc. The implication is still the same. Many WILL die. There's no doubt. Not sure why you're down playing it.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  “Many will die” is a reasonable assumption. “Billions will die” is hysterical, indefensible nonsense—which was my point.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Billions could die. We're talking major ecosystem disruption here. We exist at the top of a very fragile web. We're seeing supply chain disruptions already, just from our own internal failure to get our shit together. Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off flooded cities, failing crops, dwindling fish stocks, and entire countries being rendered uninhabitable? It's not about the global survivability of the climate - it's what the shock will do to our own delicate social ecosystem. "Every society is three meals away from chaos".
    - marcusverus 5y ago
      > We're talking major ecosystem disruption here. We exist at the top of a very fragile web. The vast majority of our food comes from a small number of domesticated sources which aren't all that reliant on the 'fragile web'. 50% of plant food calories come from only corn, rice, and wheat. We only eat a handful of domesticated animals and fish. Is climate change going to kill off corn? Are chickens going to go extinct? Clearly ecosystem collapse and mass extinction would be an absolute catastrophe--but we don't hunt and gather for calories, we farm and ranch. There is no indication that climate change is going to render us unable to feed ourselves. > We're seeing supply chain disruptions already, just from our own internal failure to get our shit together. These supply chain disruptions have nothing to do with climate change, and to my knowledge they have not resulted in a single missed meal, let alone mass starvation. Probably because we're capable of triage--the most important stuff gets shipped first! > Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off flooded cities... and entire countries being rendered uninhabitable? When Katrina hit New Orleans, a million people evacuated overnight. During the Syrian civil war, millions of refugees were willingly absorbed into Europe. This year, the US is on pace to absorb ~2 million illegal immigrants. We as a society handle flash migration events on a regular basis. The changes that will occur due to climate change won't happen overnight--they'll happen over many decades. There is no reason to assume that billions die because of mass migrations. Mass migrations happen all the time, and we handle them just fine. > Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off... failing crops These changes won't happen overnight, either. People are perfectly capable of adapting to changes in climate--we've been doing it for 10,000 years. And now we have read/write access to the genomes of our staple crops! > Are you really so confident globalized society can shrug off... dwindling fish stocks Fish are one of many sources of protein--they're not a staple. Dwindling fish stocks and even extinctions are likely, but nobody will starve due to a lack of access to fish. In summary, climate change will wreak havoc, sure. But the floor will not become lava overnight. We know what's coming, we have the ability to adapt, and we will.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Worst case is the planetary ecosystem falls apart from the bottom up. If pollinators die it's over. And it will be far too late fix the problem. It's basically an IQ test, and at the moment the species is far too dumb to pass.