6 ms·

Step 1: Take a deep breath. The world is not ending tomorrow, or next year, or even in 100 years. Subjecting yourself to excess fear is not helpful. You will

Step 1: Take a deep breath. The world is not ending tomorrow, or next year, or even in 100 years. Subjecting yourself to excess fear is not helpful. You will be fine. Your kids will be fine. Their kids will mostly be fine. Step 2: Try to understand what will actually happen and prepare yourself accordingly. Severe weather systems will probably continue to worsen - you can prepare yourself for those. You can look up the realistic model predictions for sea level rise and compare on a map like [1] what that means and choose where to live accordingly (aside from Florida, the real risks are from hurricanes). Etc. Step 3: Ask yourself what you can realistically do and what you cannot realistically do. For the things in the latter bucket, refer to Step 2 and don't worry about them so much. For things in the first bucket, do what you can. Personally, I donate to 3 different orgs to more than offset my carbon footprint, and I try to lead a low-carbon lifestyle where possible (don't use A/C or heat as much, eat less meat, drive less, etc.). Step 4: If you want to take a "big plunge", ask yourself seriously if you would do more good by quitting your job to work on this space, or if something else would be more effective. In most cases, it's more effective to donate more money to the change you want to see, or to become more involved in politics. In most cases, the core causes of climate change aren't going to be solved by new tech. [1] https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/sea-level-rise-map-viewer https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/sea-level-rise-map...

polotics 5y ago
There is no indication that you or your kids will be fine. The pace of extreme events is going much faster than any of the quite-conservative models could predict. It is most certain that my children's children lives will be heavily affected if not wholly dominated, by the combination of climate disruption, resource depletion, and biodiversity plunge. There is no reason to be panic but at this point not advocating for a tenfold drop in fossil fuel consumption is madness: don't fly, avoid driving, reduce meat consumption, inform your friends.
- Aloha 5y ago
  A changing climate doesn't mean an unlivable earth. We're focused on trying to shove the genie back in the bottle, rather than dealing with the rather wrenching changes ahead. We should be investing on dealing with the wrenching changes ahead, because some measure of them are coming, like it or not. How is a global 10x reduction in consumption of fossil fuels even possible, in the 5 year timespan people seem to think we need to do it in? Like it might be possible in the developed world, but the rest of the world? I don't think so. I'm a big believer in sustainable living, and have been for decades, but I think we missed the boat on substantially stopping climate change.
  - ksdale 5y ago
    This. There is such a huge chasm between mass death, and practically any other consequence of climate change. As long as mass death doesn't occur, people will adapt to what happens (and it may be rather unpleasant, to be sure...) A huge loss of biodiversity is a massive tragedy, but as far as our grandchildren being "fine," people have lived for basically all of history in circumstances much worse than they're likely to encounter.
    - time_to_smile 5y ago
      > people have lived for basically all of history in circumstances much worse than they're likely to encounter. I see people make this claim all the time, but it is blatantly false. The XKCD earth temperature timeline is a good, quick example [0]. Even better is this plot of Temperature of the Planet Earth [1]. Make sure to take a second to look at the spike at the end. We're facing temperatures in the next 100 years that this planet has not seen for millions, happening at a pace that may have never occurred before. People have never seen anything close to what we are facing in the near term, and absolutely nothing like what awaits for us in 100 years. 0. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1200px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Al...
      - ksdale 5y ago
        I'm not saying that the climate isn't going to change drastically, I'm saying that as long there isn't mass death, people will adapt, and most likely will continue to have a higher standard of living than people did for most of history. And certainly the pace of change is very alarming, but millions of years ago, when the temperature was so high, I'm pretty sure the Earth was capable of supporting just as much or more biomass. "People have never seen anything close to what we are facing in the near term, and absolutely nothing like what awaits for us in 100 years." I keep seeing people make this claim, assuming it is self-evident that this means apocalypse. It's true that this has never happened before, and that's the only thing that's set in stone. Humans possess tremendous ingenuity and flexibility. Like I keep saying, assuming everyone doesn't starve to death, people can adapt to anything else.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Not that long ago (2000 years) the Earth's climate was warmer than it is today: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-sugg... The Romans did just fine. From the link: "In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age." You know what...the Earth's climate has changed multiple times and we're still here. So the alarmist attitude that we're all going to die is not warranted IMHO.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    Haven’t you heard? Outrage is all the rage now days. The hotter the take, the better.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    Oh yes, also forget about this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age During the middle ages, so even more recent.
hutzlibu 5y ago
" In most cases, the core causes of climate change aren't going to be solved by new tech." Why not? If for example a cheap, simple new technology would be out by tomorrow, that provides allmost unlimited energy (let's say a wonderful simple approach to cold fusion◇) - then all the dirty stuff we do today, because it is cheap - could be done without the dirt of fossil fuels. ◇ but I do not believe that will happen at all. I rather would invest in harvesting more the energy provided by us of the big fusion plant called the sun
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mdorazio 5y ago
  I try to stay at least reasonably well-informed of developments in the space, and the bottom line is two-fold: 1) There is no magic bullet technology just around the corner that will solve all our problems for either energy generation or carbon sequestration. Fusion is decades away from practicality, renewables will take decades to slowly scale up and replace fossil fuels, carbon sequestration at scale is expensive without a real economic output, and climate change is a global problem rather a country-specific one, which leads to #2 2) We have all the technology we need today. What we lack is the political, social, and economic willpower to make climate change a priority globally. A true carbon tax with proceeds going to renewables development & sequestration would solve a huge portion of the problem, as would removing subsidies for high-pollution activities. The fact that these things aren't even taken seriously at the congressional level tells you all you need to know.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >If for example a cheap, simple new technology would be out by tomorrow, that provides allmost unlimited energy (let's say a wonderful simple approach to cold fusion◇) - then all the dirty stuff we do today, because it is cheap - could be done without the dirt of fossil fuels. To paraphrase something that I remember reading once but now cannot find because Google cannot ever help you find anything useful (nor can the others but at least you aren't giving them all your privacy for nothing): The person who creates a new and abundant source of energy without at the same time creating an equivalent heat sink for this planet would be history's greatest monster.

polotics 5y ago

There is no indication that you or your kids will be fine. The pace of extreme events is going much faster than any of the quite-conservative models could predict. It is most certain that my children's children lives will be heavily affected if not wholly dominated, by the combination of climate disruption, resource depletion, and biodiversity plunge. There is no reason to be panic but at this point not advocating for a tenfold drop in fossil fuel consumption is madness: don't fly, avoid driving, reduce meat consumption, inform your friends.

Aloha 5y ago
A changing climate doesn't mean an unlivable earth. We're focused on trying to shove the genie back in the bottle, rather than dealing with the rather wrenching changes ahead. We should be investing on dealing with the wrenching changes ahead, because some measure of them are coming, like it or not. How is a global 10x reduction in consumption of fossil fuels even possible, in the 5 year timespan people seem to think we need to do it in? Like it might be possible in the developed world, but the rest of the world? I don't think so. I'm a big believer in sustainable living, and have been for decades, but I think we missed the boat on substantially stopping climate change.
- ksdale 5y ago
  This. There is such a huge chasm between mass death, and practically any other consequence of climate change. As long as mass death doesn't occur, people will adapt to what happens (and it may be rather unpleasant, to be sure...) A huge loss of biodiversity is a massive tragedy, but as far as our grandchildren being "fine," people have lived for basically all of history in circumstances much worse than they're likely to encounter.
  - time_to_smile 5y ago
    > people have lived for basically all of history in circumstances much worse than they're likely to encounter. I see people make this claim all the time, but it is blatantly false. The XKCD earth temperature timeline is a good, quick example [0]. Even better is this plot of Temperature of the Planet Earth [1]. Make sure to take a second to look at the spike at the end. We're facing temperatures in the next 100 years that this planet has not seen for millions, happening at a pace that may have never occurred before. People have never seen anything close to what we are facing in the near term, and absolutely nothing like what awaits for us in 100 years. 0. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1200px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Al...
    - ksdale 5y ago
      I'm not saying that the climate isn't going to change drastically, I'm saying that as long there isn't mass death, people will adapt, and most likely will continue to have a higher standard of living than people did for most of history. And certainly the pace of change is very alarming, but millions of years ago, when the temperature was so high, I'm pretty sure the Earth was capable of supporting just as much or more biomass. "People have never seen anything close to what we are facing in the near term, and absolutely nothing like what awaits for us in 100 years." I keep seeing people make this claim, assuming it is self-evident that this means apocalypse. It's true that this has never happened before, and that's the only thing that's set in stone. Humans possess tremendous ingenuity and flexibility. Like I keep saying, assuming everyone doesn't starve to death, people can adapt to anything else.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
Not that long ago (2000 years) the Earth's climate was warmer than it is today: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-sugg... The Romans did just fine. From the link: "In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age." You know what...the Earth's climate has changed multiple times and we're still here. So the alarmist attitude that we're all going to die is not warranted IMHO.
- crate_barre 5y ago
  Haven’t you heard? Outrage is all the rage now days. The hotter the take, the better.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Oh yes, also forget about this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age During the middle ages, so even more recent.

hutzlibu 5y ago

" In most cases, the core causes of climate change aren't going to be solved by new tech." Why not? If for example a cheap, simple new technology would be out by tomorrow, that provides allmost unlimited energy (let's say a wonderful simple approach to cold fusion◇) - then all the dirty stuff we do today, because it is cheap - could be done without the dirt of fossil fuels. ◇ but I do not believe that will happen at all. I rather would invest in harvesting more the energy provided by us of the big fusion plant called the sun

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mdorazio 5y ago
I try to stay at least reasonably well-informed of developments in the space, and the bottom line is two-fold: 1) There is no magic bullet technology just around the corner that will solve all our problems for either energy generation or carbon sequestration. Fusion is decades away from practicality, renewables will take decades to slowly scale up and replace fossil fuels, carbon sequestration at scale is expensive without a real economic output, and climate change is a global problem rather a country-specific one, which leads to #2 2) We have all the technology we need today. What we lack is the political, social, and economic willpower to make climate change a priority globally. A true carbon tax with proceeds going to renewables development & sequestration would solve a huge portion of the problem, as would removing subsidies for high-pollution activities. The fact that these things aren't even taken seriously at the congressional level tells you all you need to know.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>If for example a cheap, simple new technology would be out by tomorrow, that provides allmost unlimited energy (let's say a wonderful simple approach to cold fusion◇) - then all the dirty stuff we do today, because it is cheap - could be done without the dirt of fossil fuels. To paraphrase something that I remember reading once but now cannot find because Google cannot ever help you find anything useful (nor can the others but at least you aren't giving them all your privacy for nothing): The person who creates a new and abundant source of energy without at the same time creating an equivalent heat sink for this planet would be history's greatest monster.