8 ms·

National Intelligence Estimate on Climate Change [pdf]

62 points by boplicity 5y ago

boplicity 5y ago
What a depressing report. It lays out, quite clearly, so many of the things that most of us know, and yet don't know how to confront. This is predicting that we'll pass the 1.5c threshold by 2030, sooner than I thought. All of this will lead to predictable outcomes: More war, more humanitarian crises, more mass-migration, strain on food supply, etc... If only the "perception of insuficient contributions to reduce emissions" was at the highest possible level now, as opposed to after the effects of climate change get much worse.
- furgooswft13 5y ago
  > All of this will lead to predictable outcomes: More war, more humanitarian crises, more mass-migration, strain on food supply, etc... How convenient to blame this all on climate change. Makes it easier for the incompetent, corrupt, and downright evil people running our governments, who created these disasters in the first place with their absurd policies, to "save us" with yet more absurd climate policies. When these policies -- predictably -- make things even worse, they will surely claim we must pass even more onerous, confiscatory, job destroying "climate legislation". When this happens you can re-post your comment after incrementing a few numbers.
  - oshkarr 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - furgooswft13 5y ago
      Nothing needs to be done to address made up fear porn, besides to stop watching it.
      - simion314 5y ago
        If you had the skill to do some algebra and understand soem physics I could link some simple video that would prove that CO2 causes global warming , but I assume you don't believe the data in physics and math books either.
        newsclues 5y ago
        If you think complex systems like the global climate are easy to understand with some algebra and physics, you likely are truly capable of understanding the full picture.
        simion314 5y ago
        It is easy to understand that putting more CO2 in atmosphere has a heating effect. So let me split the problem in small parts and see where you get lost 1 do you believe in chemistry,physics and math ? 2 do you believe CO2 is generated when burning stuff? 3 do you believe the CO2 in atmosphere is rising? 4 do you believer that more CO2 means more heat is trapped on the surface? 5 do you believe that the global warming is significant to have an effect? 6 if yes are you maybe just of the opinion that all will be fine and we just need to wait until new tech will solve this ? I admit that you can just say "sure I believe in science but the numbers/measurements are false because of the "green industry lobby around the entire world that paid all the scientists in all countries and also went in tiem and modified 400+ years records" , then yes, science can't help you.
        furgooswft13 5y ago
        I really don't care. The "solutions" are always far worse than the "problem". Thus the "problem" needs to be hyped up beyond all sanity to the point where Stephen Hawking is claiming Earth's atmosphere will be like Venus in 30 years. That won't happen, but sometimes I wish it would, soon, as I'd take burning alive in a sky of fire over having to endure any more of this climate doom circle jerk retardation.
      - idiotsecant 5y ago
        Physics doesn't stop being true because you don't believe in it. That's why it's physics.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Well that's probably true for what I'll call Wal-Mart libertarians (similar to Wal-Mart wolverines in college football - some will appreciate that), but many people who have actually studied libertarianism would have argued for quite a number of things, ranging from carbon markets to increased government action. For example, many libertarian flavors hold that the environment is a common good. You can't pollute the river upstream from me because that affects my water and deprives me of property and resources - you'd have to compensate for that. Other libertarians simply believe that markets solve problems better than governments do (hard not to argue with that right now) and that a carbon market that could actually price the damage we do to the environment would be good and also in-line with very principled arguments. I'd also argue that really libertarians haven't had much of a way of influence in American politics and this is strictly the failure of the USG (Republicans and Democrats) to take action. Also, the vast majority of people can't be bothered to take personal action either - like spending more money to buy local produce or traveling by plane less. Let's not scapegoat a tiny margin of people when we're all very, very wasteful.
      - evol262 5y ago
        > Other libertarians simply believe that markets solve problems better than governments do (hard not to argue with that right now) Considering that the supply chain problems can be laid squarely at the feet of "markets" assuming that everything would operate in a vacuum like an econ textbook and imploding once external pressure interrupted things, it's very hard to argue with that. > I'd also argue that really libertarians haven't had much of a way of influence in American politics and this is strictly the failure of the USG (Republicans and Democrats) to take action. The principal problem with this argument is the "no true Scotsman" attitude of "real libertarians" compared to other "real libertarians". I don't know what "libertarians" are to you, but the obvious answer is that if they haven't had much of an influence in American politics, it's because their policies and stances aren't popular. Most of the Western world experienced unregulated market dynamics in the robber baron era, and arguably again in the last 10-15 years. We've been there and tried it.
        ericmay 5y ago
        > Considering that the supply chain problems can be laid squarely at the feet of "markets" assuming that everything would operate in a vacuum like an econ textbook and imploding once external pressure interrupted things, it's very hard to argue with that. I mean yea... we had a gigantic pandemic and people were getting sick. We can also attribute the fact that you have goods and services and a vaccine in your arm to the same markets. Certainly the government helped in some ways but it also completely botched the response to the pandemic. > The principal problem with this argument is the "no true Scotsman" attitude of "real libertarians" compared to other "real libertarians". No this isn't that. If you're going to bucket list a bunch of people and say "blah blah blah libertarians think this" then I'm going to point out why that's incorrect and not representative of general libertarian philosophy which is a lot more than what is being discussed in the OP. It's not a fair characterization, and clearing up misconceptions is a fair thing to do. "Libertarians think X" "No they actually think X,Y,and Z". > I don't know what "libertarians" are to you, but the obvious answer is that if they haven't had much of an influence in American politics, it's because their policies and stances aren't popular. Great so then why are we blaming them again? If you want to say "they did have an influence" then fine, I'll say that Communists and such have had a big influence too. > Most of the Western world experienced unregulated market dynamics in the robber baron era, and arguably again in the last 10-15 years. We've been there and tried it. I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess in response I could say we experienced uncontrolled Communism during the 1940s-1980s and now again with the CCP. We've been there and tried that.
    - tamaharbor 5y ago
      Or when ‘scientists’ came to the opposite conclusions forty years ago. You can understand the confusion.
      - idiotsecant 5y ago
        The science is clear and undeniable. It's simple physics. CO2 traps heat. https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gif https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gi... If you can look at this chart and not understand why man-made climate change is a real phenomenon I'm not sure what to say. FUD about whether some scientist 40 years ago understood this or not is completely irrelevant. You don't need to "trust" anyone to understand this. It's incredibly simple.
      - tenuousemphasis 5y ago
        Forty years is a fuck load of climate science. You're familiar with how science works right? New data often leads to a better understanding of the world and an increased ability to predict the future.
      - polotics 5y ago
        The year 2000 called and wants its climate denialism trolling points back. Have you not seen the memo, now it's all about adaptation and impact minimisation now.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - simion314 5y ago
    >How convenient to blame this all on climate change. Makes it easier for the incompetent, corrupt, and downright evil people running our governments, who created these disasters in the first place with their absurd policies, to "save us" with yet more absurd climate policies. What absurd policies? I suspect you can blame the lack of policies , like those oil extraction where they buts soem excess gas just because it is not profitable enough to use it. But I am waiting for you to please explain how an anarchy would have done better or some wild capitalist society with no legislation would have done better for the environment.
    - furgooswft13 5y ago
      The environment is fine right now, and according to you, no policies have been in place to "help it". So I guess "anarchy" or "wild capitalism" works just fine. The economy on the other hand is in total ruins, largely because of policies related to COVID-19, which also had a marginal impact on emissions. Imagine policies that have significant impacts...
      - evol262 5y ago
        > The economy on the other hand is in total ruins, largely because of policies related to COVID-19, which also had a marginal impact on emissions. This is the reddest of herrings. The government's role is to strive for the security and safety of its citizens. "Policies related to COVID-19" are part and parcel of that. The economy is "in ruins" not because of "policies related to COVID-19", but because in striving for squeezing every last drop of profitability out of things, a "just-in-time" model was adopted for everything under the sun, which fell apart at the first real obstacle. It's a supply-side crunch from the bottom of the chain on up. Companies which are depleted of capital in order to line people's pockets are unable to jumpstart the process fiscally, and decades of mistreating workers is backfiring as a labor shortage which *should* drive increased wages is leading only to calls for bailouts and government intervention, or _anything_ other than paying market wages. Don't blame governments for unfettered capitalism being an ouroboros.
        5y ago
  - legulere 5y ago
    Evilness is not a personality trait. Calling people evil only shows a lack of willing to try to understand the reasons behind the actions of those people. There is no big rich lobby for decarbonization yet. People in governments fight climate change mostly because they believe in it or because they think they can further their career with it (like everyone in top positions).
- bognition 5y ago
  Agreed, for some reason I thought we'd hit 1.5c by 2100 or something like that. It was very eye opening to see we're already at 1.1c I'm confident that eventually we'll collectively respond but by that time the expense of the recovery will be huge and the devastation will already be here. I'm starting to believe more and more in "the great filter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    That's 1.1c since the 1880 starting point. Not 1.1c for the 21st century. We are still on track for 1.5-2.5c warming in the 21st century.
- amelius 5y ago
  Current political system considered harmful.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    If you mean non-proportional voting systems, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and lax campaign finance laws, then I think you're right. Many countries have solved those problems, though, so the situation isn't hopeless.
    - randcraw 5y ago
      And the US' two-party-only political system, most of all.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        I would hope that any proportional voting system that was introduced would also break the two-party duopoly, but I suppose that's not a guaranteed consequence. For example, if IRV was more widely adopted, you might still find that only the two big parties ever win seats (although by removing the spoiler effect, third parties become a viable threat which could act to steer the big parties towards more representative policies rather than them relying on the "lesser of two evils" effect). Conversely, it could be possible to have somewhat popular third parties without a proportional voting system, as is seen in Canada or the UK, but those countries still see the biggest party at the national level always being one of the two main parties.
Proven 5y ago
Exec summary: globalist/climatist propaganda in function of the current administration's agenda. It's all some bullshit opinions and demands. Little to no actual consequences of supposed climate changes.
optymizer 5y ago
I'd like to maximize my chances of retiring in a place without major climate issues in 20 years. Where would I find a model that would show me a place on Earth that's likely to be "fine" (or conversely, places where one would definitely not want to find themselves living in)? For example, this report mentions that by 2040 developing countries are going to struggle, so I wouldn't want to retire to a developing country. Is the weather in Alaska likely to get much warmer and reach temperatures like in California? There's going to be strain on energy and food systems, so I suppose I'll have to be able to grow my own food, at least to some degree, so I would need a decent garden and good weather to grow the food. And so on.. Are there any resources to start planning this semi-seriously, without getting sucked into a whole "world is going to end" doomsday prepper narrative with guns, zombies and bunkers? I imagine that land and housing prices in such future areas is only going to increase, so it would be nice to get ahead of the curve.
- mym1990 5y ago
  Its never too late to start learning how to grow food! I imagine if you try to learn when things are melting down, it won't be a fruitful experience. You only need a bit of space to grow as a beginner. I've started a hydroponic system for about 50$ on my porch, which is about 5x10 feet. There is a massive pool of resources to learn from on YouTube or from books.
- gmuslera 5y ago
  "fine within this timeframe", that may be shorter than you think. As things become more extreme new weather patterns seem to be emerging, with some weather events that surprised meteorologists. Think that a Canadian town at lat 50 got almost 50ºC this very year. In the long term, if nothing meaningful is done, no place would be safe, at least in the open. But I don't know how things will develop in the 20 years timeframe, both in the climate and in the human side.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  I can't offer you any sources, only what I've gathered and synthesized over the last decade or so: Climate change is going to make the world hotter and drier, on average. You want a place that is currently cool and rainy. Think oceanic climate zones. In the US, that's the PNW, and the Alaskan Peninsula. The only problem is that area is extremely vulnerable to major earthquakes. Second best bet is the Great lakes region. Third is northern new england, around lake champlain. When it comes to other areas of the world, NZ comes up a lot. There's also places like Portugal, Galacia (sp), Ireland, the UK, and much of the Scandi countries.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
National security literacy tip: China is the world's biggest C02 producer and has declared it has no more concessions to make. Yet the world is content to watch America fall further into debt & inflation as climate-focused regulations impact logistics, energy & manufacturing. In sum, the US is destabilizing, risking social disorder, for a goal its competitors will not meet. For example, US coal supplies are the lowest they've been in decades at a time when domestic energy demands are requiring about 16% more coal than last year. Similarly, the backlog at California ports is largely due to environmental regulations enacted by the CA legislature (truck emissions primarily). Putting this imbalance in national security context... Resources China & Russia could be allocating to climate change are instead directed to offensive hypersonic weapons, nuclear launch capabilities & forward deployed bases. The US is scrambling to match these investments and innovations in a more expensive labor/procurement environment & while facing all manner of distractions declared national priorities, yet having nothing to do with real security.
- CalChris 5y ago
  The United States exports coal. The San Pedro Bay backup has nothing to do with California emission standards; it has to do with COVID causing labor shortages. Seattle is having the same problem with the same cause.
  - howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    Incorrect and well established that: 1. CA truck emission standards preclude about 40% of chassis from entering CA ports until they meet standards. 2. CA regs, until this week, prevented stacking containers more than 2 high. 3. Ports not short labor, in fact they just added a night shift - well underutilized b/c 1 & 2 above. RE: Coal https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-26/coal-piles-drop-to-24-year-low-at-u-s-utilities-on-demand-surge https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-26/coal-pile...
    - CalChris 5y ago
      1. No, chassis don't pollute. The CARB standards on trucks have nothing to do with the ports. Moreover, those CARB standards are adopted by 16 other states including Oregon and Washington. So your uncited 40% get nowhere near a West Coast port. 2. No, that wasn't 'CA regs'. It was a local Long Beach ordinance. And it was for empties. And it was never a problem before but as soon as Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen brought it up, Long Beach issued an emergency variance [1], like within a day. FWIW, the Seattle Fire Department has the same two high regulation. 3. There are a lot more points in the supply chain that use labor and that have been affected by COVID than container crane operators. It is a complex issue [4]. [1] https://longbeach.gov/press-releases/city-of-long-beach-statement-on-temporarily-allowing-additional-container-stacking/ https://longbeach.gov/press-releases/city-of-long-beach-stat... Yes, the United States exports coal, quite a bit [2], 4th in the world [3]. [2] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports... [3] https://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ https://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ [4] https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/cargo_congestion_on_west_coast_is_a_consequence_of_complex_issues https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/cargo_congestion_on_we...
debacle 5y ago
The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. We can't even solve our water use, and that is going to cause collapse much sooner than the climate. And it's obvious looking at the oncoming water crisis that those who are most vulnerable will also be least protected, while the supply chains oligarchical institutions are going to be nearly completely enshrined. We are 20 years away, as a conglomeration of democracies, from even being capable of appropriately addressing climate change.
- mbg721 5y ago
  We're also trying various rapid responses to a slow change, and they're all so subject to political corruption that it's widely assumed that politics is the sole source of the problem. Try telling someone in Ohio there's a water shortage; they'll glance at the river and look at you like you have three heads.
- the-dude 5y ago
  > conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. For years there have been dire warnings about sea level rise, we have seen the same warnings in the last week in the Dutch press again. Apparently lots of ice is melting for years/decades. Yet, there is no acceleration in the sea level rise on our shores, which has been at a relatively stable ~2mm a year for over a century. Furthermore, sea level has risen since we exitted the ice age, our North Sea used to be land.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. It certainly seems that way (that "that humans are incapable of conceptualizing...", or even better, replace "conceptualizing" with "<X>"), but is it really so? It is surely presently "true" (if one ignores potentiality), but is it absolutely true (across time and all potential paths)? As a thought experiment, if you rewind 30 or so years, would this statement be an absolute Truth: "Humans are incapable of writing an operating system that <does all the things that Linux does in 2021>"? Also consider: if Richard Stallman, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds had done something other than what they actually did[1], where would we (and the internet, etc) be today? If you then consider humanity's ~paralysis on climate change (or any of our many problems) in this context, doesn't the situation we find ourselves in (on all fronts) seem more than a little absurd? I mean, if we never actually try[2] to achieve something, should we be surprised when we do not achieve it? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux "Linus Torvalds has stated on separate occasions that if the GNU kernel or 386BSD had been available at the time (1991), he probably would not have created Linux." [2] Is it not reasonably true that not only do we not try, but we don't even think about trying, or think about desiring (a plausible pre-requisite for trying) to try to think about trying , etc etc etc, recurse to infinity. Possibly related: https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
We're well past the point of stopping climate change. The world as we know it today is over. What we're fighting for now, is the extent to which that world as we know it will be destroyed. We seem to be incapable of making wise long term decisions that require sacrifice. I am resigned to simply enjoying what we have, while we have it.

62 points by boplicity 5y ago

What a depressing report. It lays out, quite clearly, so many of the things that most of us know, and yet don't know how to confront. This is predicting that we'll pass the 1.5c threshold by 2030, sooner than I thought. All of this will lead to predictable outcomes: More war, more humanitarian crises, more mass-migration, strain on food supply, etc... If only the "perception of insuficient contributions to reduce emissions" was at the highest possible level now, as opposed to after the effects of climate change get much worse.

furgooswft13 5y ago
> All of this will lead to predictable outcomes: More war, more humanitarian crises, more mass-migration, strain on food supply, etc... How convenient to blame this all on climate change. Makes it easier for the incompetent, corrupt, and downright evil people running our governments, who created these disasters in the first place with their absurd policies, to "save us" with yet more absurd climate policies. When these policies -- predictably -- make things even worse, they will surely claim we must pass even more onerous, confiscatory, job destroying "climate legislation". When this happens you can re-post your comment after incrementing a few numbers.
- oshkarr 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - furgooswft13 5y ago
    Nothing needs to be done to address made up fear porn, besides to stop watching it.
    - simion314 5y ago
      If you had the skill to do some algebra and understand soem physics I could link some simple video that would prove that CO2 causes global warming , but I assume you don't believe the data in physics and math books either.
      - newsclues 5y ago
        If you think complex systems like the global climate are easy to understand with some algebra and physics, you likely are truly capable of understanding the full picture.
        simion314 5y ago
        It is easy to understand that putting more CO2 in atmosphere has a heating effect. So let me split the problem in small parts and see where you get lost 1 do you believe in chemistry,physics and math ? 2 do you believe CO2 is generated when burning stuff? 3 do you believe the CO2 in atmosphere is rising? 4 do you believer that more CO2 means more heat is trapped on the surface? 5 do you believe that the global warming is significant to have an effect? 6 if yes are you maybe just of the opinion that all will be fine and we just need to wait until new tech will solve this ? I admit that you can just say "sure I believe in science but the numbers/measurements are false because of the "green industry lobby around the entire world that paid all the scientists in all countries and also went in tiem and modified 400+ years records" , then yes, science can't help you.
      - furgooswft13 5y ago
        I really don't care. The "solutions" are always far worse than the "problem". Thus the "problem" needs to be hyped up beyond all sanity to the point where Stephen Hawking is claiming Earth's atmosphere will be like Venus in 30 years. That won't happen, but sometimes I wish it would, soon, as I'd take burning alive in a sky of fire over having to endure any more of this climate doom circle jerk retardation.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      Physics doesn't stop being true because you don't believe in it. That's why it's physics.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Well that's probably true for what I'll call Wal-Mart libertarians (similar to Wal-Mart wolverines in college football - some will appreciate that), but many people who have actually studied libertarianism would have argued for quite a number of things, ranging from carbon markets to increased government action. For example, many libertarian flavors hold that the environment is a common good. You can't pollute the river upstream from me because that affects my water and deprives me of property and resources - you'd have to compensate for that. Other libertarians simply believe that markets solve problems better than governments do (hard not to argue with that right now) and that a carbon market that could actually price the damage we do to the environment would be good and also in-line with very principled arguments. I'd also argue that really libertarians haven't had much of a way of influence in American politics and this is strictly the failure of the USG (Republicans and Democrats) to take action. Also, the vast majority of people can't be bothered to take personal action either - like spending more money to buy local produce or traveling by plane less. Let's not scapegoat a tiny margin of people when we're all very, very wasteful.
    - evol262 5y ago
      > Other libertarians simply believe that markets solve problems better than governments do (hard not to argue with that right now) Considering that the supply chain problems can be laid squarely at the feet of "markets" assuming that everything would operate in a vacuum like an econ textbook and imploding once external pressure interrupted things, it's very hard to argue with that. > I'd also argue that really libertarians haven't had much of a way of influence in American politics and this is strictly the failure of the USG (Republicans and Democrats) to take action. The principal problem with this argument is the "no true Scotsman" attitude of "real libertarians" compared to other "real libertarians". I don't know what "libertarians" are to you, but the obvious answer is that if they haven't had much of an influence in American politics, it's because their policies and stances aren't popular. Most of the Western world experienced unregulated market dynamics in the robber baron era, and arguably again in the last 10-15 years. We've been there and tried it.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > Considering that the supply chain problems can be laid squarely at the feet of "markets" assuming that everything would operate in a vacuum like an econ textbook and imploding once external pressure interrupted things, it's very hard to argue with that. I mean yea... we had a gigantic pandemic and people were getting sick. We can also attribute the fact that you have goods and services and a vaccine in your arm to the same markets. Certainly the government helped in some ways but it also completely botched the response to the pandemic. > The principal problem with this argument is the "no true Scotsman" attitude of "real libertarians" compared to other "real libertarians". No this isn't that. If you're going to bucket list a bunch of people and say "blah blah blah libertarians think this" then I'm going to point out why that's incorrect and not representative of general libertarian philosophy which is a lot more than what is being discussed in the OP. It's not a fair characterization, and clearing up misconceptions is a fair thing to do. "Libertarians think X" "No they actually think X,Y,and Z". > I don't know what "libertarians" are to you, but the obvious answer is that if they haven't had much of an influence in American politics, it's because their policies and stances aren't popular. Great so then why are we blaming them again? If you want to say "they did have an influence" then fine, I'll say that Communists and such have had a big influence too. > Most of the Western world experienced unregulated market dynamics in the robber baron era, and arguably again in the last 10-15 years. We've been there and tried it. I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess in response I could say we experienced uncontrolled Communism during the 1940s-1980s and now again with the CCP. We've been there and tried that.
  - tamaharbor 5y ago
    Or when ‘scientists’ came to the opposite conclusions forty years ago. You can understand the confusion.
    - idiotsecant 5y ago
      The science is clear and undeniable. It's simple physics. CO2 traps heat. https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gif https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gi... If you can look at this chart and not understand why man-made climate change is a real phenomenon I'm not sure what to say. FUD about whether some scientist 40 years ago understood this or not is completely irrelevant. You don't need to "trust" anyone to understand this. It's incredibly simple.
    - tenuousemphasis 5y ago
      Forty years is a fuck load of climate science. You're familiar with how science works right? New data often leads to a better understanding of the world and an increased ability to predict the future.
    - polotics 5y ago
      The year 2000 called and wants its climate denialism trolling points back. Have you not seen the memo, now it's all about adaptation and impact minimisation now.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- simion314 5y ago
  >How convenient to blame this all on climate change. Makes it easier for the incompetent, corrupt, and downright evil people running our governments, who created these disasters in the first place with their absurd policies, to "save us" with yet more absurd climate policies. What absurd policies? I suspect you can blame the lack of policies , like those oil extraction where they buts soem excess gas just because it is not profitable enough to use it. But I am waiting for you to please explain how an anarchy would have done better or some wild capitalist society with no legislation would have done better for the environment.
  - furgooswft13 5y ago
    The environment is fine right now, and according to you, no policies have been in place to "help it". So I guess "anarchy" or "wild capitalism" works just fine. The economy on the other hand is in total ruins, largely because of policies related to COVID-19, which also had a marginal impact on emissions. Imagine policies that have significant impacts...
    - evol262 5y ago
      > The economy on the other hand is in total ruins, largely because of policies related to COVID-19, which also had a marginal impact on emissions. This is the reddest of herrings. The government's role is to strive for the security and safety of its citizens. "Policies related to COVID-19" are part and parcel of that. The economy is "in ruins" not because of "policies related to COVID-19", but because in striving for squeezing every last drop of profitability out of things, a "just-in-time" model was adopted for everything under the sun, which fell apart at the first real obstacle. It's a supply-side crunch from the bottom of the chain on up. Companies which are depleted of capital in order to line people's pockets are unable to jumpstart the process fiscally, and decades of mistreating workers is backfiring as a labor shortage which *should* drive increased wages is leading only to calls for bailouts and government intervention, or _anything_ other than paying market wages. Don't blame governments for unfettered capitalism being an ouroboros.
      - 5y ago
- legulere 5y ago
  Evilness is not a personality trait. Calling people evil only shows a lack of willing to try to understand the reasons behind the actions of those people. There is no big rich lobby for decarbonization yet. People in governments fight climate change mostly because they believe in it or because they think they can further their career with it (like everyone in top positions).
bognition 5y ago
Agreed, for some reason I thought we'd hit 1.5c by 2100 or something like that. It was very eye opening to see we're already at 1.1c I'm confident that eventually we'll collectively respond but by that time the expense of the recovery will be huge and the devastation will already be here. I'm starting to believe more and more in "the great filter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
- merpnderp 5y ago
  That's 1.1c since the 1880 starting point. Not 1.1c for the 21st century. We are still on track for 1.5-2.5c warming in the 21st century.
amelius 5y ago
Current political system considered harmful.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  If you mean non-proportional voting systems, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and lax campaign finance laws, then I think you're right. Many countries have solved those problems, though, so the situation isn't hopeless.
  - randcraw 5y ago
    And the US' two-party-only political system, most of all.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      I would hope that any proportional voting system that was introduced would also break the two-party duopoly, but I suppose that's not a guaranteed consequence. For example, if IRV was more widely adopted, you might still find that only the two big parties ever win seats (although by removing the spoiler effect, third parties become a viable threat which could act to steer the big parties towards more representative policies rather than them relying on the "lesser of two evils" effect). Conversely, it could be possible to have somewhat popular third parties without a proportional voting system, as is seen in Canada or the UK, but those countries still see the biggest party at the national level always being one of the two main parties.

Proven 5y ago

Exec summary: globalist/climatist propaganda in function of the current administration's agenda. It's all some bullshit opinions and demands. Little to no actual consequences of supposed climate changes.

optymizer 5y ago

I'd like to maximize my chances of retiring in a place without major climate issues in 20 years. Where would I find a model that would show me a place on Earth that's likely to be "fine" (or conversely, places where one would definitely not want to find themselves living in)? For example, this report mentions that by 2040 developing countries are going to struggle, so I wouldn't want to retire to a developing country. Is the weather in Alaska likely to get much warmer and reach temperatures like in California? There's going to be strain on energy and food systems, so I suppose I'll have to be able to grow my own food, at least to some degree, so I would need a decent garden and good weather to grow the food. And so on.. Are there any resources to start planning this semi-seriously, without getting sucked into a whole "world is going to end" doomsday prepper narrative with guns, zombies and bunkers? I imagine that land and housing prices in such future areas is only going to increase, so it would be nice to get ahead of the curve.

mym1990 5y ago
Its never too late to start learning how to grow food! I imagine if you try to learn when things are melting down, it won't be a fruitful experience. You only need a bit of space to grow as a beginner. I've started a hydroponic system for about 50$ on my porch, which is about 5x10 feet. There is a massive pool of resources to learn from on YouTube or from books.
gmuslera 5y ago
"fine within this timeframe", that may be shorter than you think. As things become more extreme new weather patterns seem to be emerging, with some weather events that surprised meteorologists. Think that a Canadian town at lat 50 got almost 50ºC this very year. In the long term, if nothing meaningful is done, no place would be safe, at least in the open. But I don't know how things will develop in the 20 years timeframe, both in the climate and in the human side.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
I can't offer you any sources, only what I've gathered and synthesized over the last decade or so: Climate change is going to make the world hotter and drier, on average. You want a place that is currently cool and rainy. Think oceanic climate zones. In the US, that's the PNW, and the Alaskan Peninsula. The only problem is that area is extremely vulnerable to major earthquakes. Second best bet is the Great lakes region. Third is northern new england, around lake champlain. When it comes to other areas of the world, NZ comes up a lot. There's also places like Portugal, Galacia (sp), Ireland, the UK, and much of the Scandi countries.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

National security literacy tip: China is the world's biggest C02 producer and has declared it has no more concessions to make. Yet the world is content to watch America fall further into debt & inflation as climate-focused regulations impact logistics, energy & manufacturing. In sum, the US is destabilizing, risking social disorder, for a goal its competitors will not meet. For example, US coal supplies are the lowest they've been in decades at a time when domestic energy demands are requiring about 16% more coal than last year. Similarly, the backlog at California ports is largely due to environmental regulations enacted by the CA legislature (truck emissions primarily). Putting this imbalance in national security context... Resources China & Russia could be allocating to climate change are instead directed to offensive hypersonic weapons, nuclear launch capabilities & forward deployed bases. The US is scrambling to match these investments and innovations in a more expensive labor/procurement environment & while facing all manner of distractions declared national priorities, yet having nothing to do with real security.

CalChris 5y ago
The United States exports coal. The San Pedro Bay backup has nothing to do with California emission standards; it has to do with COVID causing labor shortages. Seattle is having the same problem with the same cause.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  Incorrect and well established that: 1. CA truck emission standards preclude about 40% of chassis from entering CA ports until they meet standards. 2. CA regs, until this week, prevented stacking containers more than 2 high. 3. Ports not short labor, in fact they just added a night shift - well underutilized b/c 1 & 2 above. RE: Coal https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-26/coal-piles-drop-to-24-year-low-at-u-s-utilities-on-demand-surge https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-26/coal-pile...
  - CalChris 5y ago
    1. No, chassis don't pollute. The CARB standards on trucks have nothing to do with the ports. Moreover, those CARB standards are adopted by 16 other states including Oregon and Washington. So your uncited 40% get nowhere near a West Coast port. 2. No, that wasn't 'CA regs'. It was a local Long Beach ordinance. And it was for empties. And it was never a problem before but as soon as Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen brought it up, Long Beach issued an emergency variance [1], like within a day. FWIW, the Seattle Fire Department has the same two high regulation. 3. There are a lot more points in the supply chain that use labor and that have been affected by COVID than container crane operators. It is a complex issue [4]. [1] https://longbeach.gov/press-releases/city-of-long-beach-statement-on-temporarily-allowing-additional-container-stacking/ https://longbeach.gov/press-releases/city-of-long-beach-stat... Yes, the United States exports coal, quite a bit [2], 4th in the world [3]. [2] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports... [3] https://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ https://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ [4] https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/cargo_congestion_on_west_coast_is_a_consequence_of_complex_issues https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/cargo_congestion_on_we...

debacle 5y ago

The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. We can't even solve our water use, and that is going to cause collapse much sooner than the climate. And it's obvious looking at the oncoming water crisis that those who are most vulnerable will also be least protected, while the supply chains oligarchical institutions are going to be nearly completely enshrined. We are 20 years away, as a conglomeration of democracies, from even being capable of appropriately addressing climate change.

mbg721 5y ago
We're also trying various rapid responses to a slow change, and they're all so subject to political corruption that it's widely assumed that politics is the sole source of the problem. Try telling someone in Ohio there's a water shortage; they'll glance at the river and look at you like you have three heads.
the-dude 5y ago
> conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. For years there have been dire warnings about sea level rise, we have seen the same warnings in the last week in the Dutch press again. Apparently lots of ice is melting for years/decades. Yet, there is no acceleration in the sea level rise on our shores, which has been at a relatively stable ~2mm a year for over a century. Furthermore, sea level has risen since we exitted the ice age, our North Sea used to be land.
mistermann 5y ago
> The problem with any such "climate disaster" is that humans are incapable of conceptualizing the impact of such slow change. It certainly seems that way (that "that humans are incapable of conceptualizing...", or even better, replace "conceptualizing" with "<X>"), but is it really so? It is surely presently "true" (if one ignores potentiality), but is it absolutely true (across time and all potential paths)? As a thought experiment, if you rewind 30 or so years, would this statement be an absolute Truth: "Humans are incapable of writing an operating system that <does all the things that Linux does in 2021>"? Also consider: if Richard Stallman, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds had done something other than what they actually did[1], where would we (and the internet, etc) be today? If you then consider humanity's ~paralysis on climate change (or any of our many problems) in this context, doesn't the situation we find ourselves in (on all fronts) seem more than a little absurd? I mean, if we never actually try[2] to achieve something, should we be surprised when we do not achieve it? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux "Linus Torvalds has stated on separate occasions that if the GNU kernel or 386BSD had been available at the time (1991), he probably would not have created Linux." [2] Is it not reasonably true that not only do we not try, but we don't even think about trying, or think about desiring (a plausible pre-requisite for trying) to try to think about trying , etc etc etc, recurse to infinity. Possibly related: https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY https://youtu.be/LIIz82ZUCQY

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

We're well past the point of stopping climate change. The world as we know it today is over. What we're fighting for now, is the extent to which that world as we know it will be destroyed. We seem to be incapable of making wise long term decisions that require sacrifice. I am resigned to simply enjoying what we have, while we have it.