6 ms·

Moving people away from disaster zones and making infrastructure more resilient would be far more realistic, not to mention cheaper, than reducing emissions or

Moving people away from disaster zones and making infrastructure more resilient would be far more realistic, not to mention cheaper, than reducing emissions or pulling CO2 from the atmosphere. It's too late to stop using fossil fuels. It's a forbidden fruit that has pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty and the third world countries want first world lifestyles. We are better off trying to mitigate.

true_religion 5y ago
I think we are already doing that, albeit in typical human style of waiting for a local disaster before moving people completely out of the danger zone. The danger zones are huge, and understandably people,ant to keep using them until the last possible moment. Like all projections show Manhattan may one day be under water, but we will only slowly abandon it as it floods rather than evacuating dry land in advance.
- EricE 5y ago
  Manhattan has been under threat of flooding for centuries yet we have figured out ways to prevent it. Same for Holland, Venice, etc. Hell as I pointed out above the Obama's just built a luxury mansion right on the beach in Marthas Vineyard. I guess they are utterly ignorant of the climate change threats, eh? Much of the climate change hysteria is only viable if you assume that human ingenuity and innovation will utterly cease for some reason. Not a very smart bet. Instead it's far more likely much of the climate change hysteria is merely a way to exert control that governments wouldn't otherwise have. For example, this article didn't even mention China or India once. If you are going to screech about carbon and not even mention the two biggest producers of atmospheric carbon then it's not a serious discussion - at all.
  - redisman 5y ago
    Manhattan and Amsterdam can afford to mitigate due to being filthy rich. They’re hardly the median coastal global city
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > For example, this article didn't even mention China or India once. If you are going to screech about carbon and not even mention the two biggest producers of atmospheric carbon then it's not a serious discussion - at all. Let's talk about China and India. These are the only ways they can keep their carbon emissions from going up: 1. China and India stop economic growth, remain poor - Easy for us in the West to say as we live in large houses, drive SUVs to the Starbucks drivethru. Difficult for them to accept because they're just trying to get enough food, clean water, and medical care. 2. Invent clean technologies that can replace fossil fuels 100% in every application. Rich countries pay the full cost (maybe adjusted for India and China's historic emissions contributions) for immediate rollout in every developing country. 3. Do neither and wait for the inevitable riots and wars to break out. What option is the best one?
redisman 5y ago
As if moving billions of people to new countries is somehow cheap or easy?
exfascist 5y ago
throwaway5752 5y ago
What you have written is the unrealistic thing. The fact that we have cognitive blinders that tends to try to go between two extremes in the middle, even when one of the extremes ("extreme steps needed to avert climate disaster") is correct and the other is incorrect ("we can't stop using fossil fuel and we should just move people from disaster zones") is incorrect. You are not taking into account the scale and width of the impact of climate change, the effort to implement what you've described, and the breakdown in society that it will cause (along with second order effects). In the early parts of covid there was almost a breakdown in civil order because of a lack of toilet paper. When that is people dying in heatwaves, mass migration, and starvation it will not be possible to handle it in a methodical fashion. We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative.
- moonchrome 5y ago
  >We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative. That's such a ridiculous statement in face of recent events - Europe can't even replace fossil fuels imported from Russia in years from now with the insane political will behind such a move - and this is some of the richest countries in the world with very left leaning/pro green energy governments. This isn't replacing fossil fuels - it's replacing one source of fuels used with another.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    There's no call for being insulting. Force majeure supply interruptions (particularly those served by durable infrastructure, like pipelines) are different from rapid but planned shifts. The cutoff of Russian gas to the European market is not very comparable. And really, there is no negotiation or bargaining with the catastrophic climate outcome - it is has no regard to how difficult it will be to move off of fossil fuels. If you want to connect this to European situation, you can see that one nation depends on fossil fuels to maintain geopolitical relevance, and you may look at political parties allied and supported by that nation and the energy policies they support. Since it's extistential for Russia (and US/Saudi petrochemical concerns) to keep people on fossil fuels, they undermine moves off it it. They flood global anti-environment movement with money and delay and obstruct fixing this, and make people believe it is less possible that it is. They are completely ambivalent to what will probably be the death of a majority of the world's population under worst case scenarios before the ended of this century (https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForP...), which is currently the most likely outcome. Anyway, we have change our ways, or doom our children. That's the choice ahead.
thirdwhrldPzz 5y ago
EricE 5y ago
Speaking of moving - isn't climate change supposed to dramatically increase the ocean levels thus induce flooding? Politicians don't seem to have got that memo: https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/peek-inside-the-obamas-new-luxe-marthas-vineyard-mansion/ https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/peek-insi... Or maybe they know the memo's are BS? It's always fun to compare what people say/supposedly believe to what they actually do.

true_religion 5y ago

I think we are already doing that, albeit in typical human style of waiting for a local disaster before moving people completely out of the danger zone. The danger zones are huge, and understandably people,ant to keep using them until the last possible moment. Like all projections show Manhattan may one day be under water, but we will only slowly abandon it as it floods rather than evacuating dry land in advance.

EricE 5y ago
Manhattan has been under threat of flooding for centuries yet we have figured out ways to prevent it. Same for Holland, Venice, etc. Hell as I pointed out above the Obama's just built a luxury mansion right on the beach in Marthas Vineyard. I guess they are utterly ignorant of the climate change threats, eh? Much of the climate change hysteria is only viable if you assume that human ingenuity and innovation will utterly cease for some reason. Not a very smart bet. Instead it's far more likely much of the climate change hysteria is merely a way to exert control that governments wouldn't otherwise have. For example, this article didn't even mention China or India once. If you are going to screech about carbon and not even mention the two biggest producers of atmospheric carbon then it's not a serious discussion - at all.
- redisman 5y ago
  Manhattan and Amsterdam can afford to mitigate due to being filthy rich. They’re hardly the median coastal global city
- triceratops 5y ago
  > For example, this article didn't even mention China or India once. If you are going to screech about carbon and not even mention the two biggest producers of atmospheric carbon then it's not a serious discussion - at all. Let's talk about China and India. These are the only ways they can keep their carbon emissions from going up: 1. China and India stop economic growth, remain poor - Easy for us in the West to say as we live in large houses, drive SUVs to the Starbucks drivethru. Difficult for them to accept because they're just trying to get enough food, clean water, and medical care. 2. Invent clean technologies that can replace fossil fuels 100% in every application. Rich countries pay the full cost (maybe adjusted for India and China's historic emissions contributions) for immediate rollout in every developing country. 3. Do neither and wait for the inevitable riots and wars to break out. What option is the best one?

redisman 5y ago

As if moving billions of people to new countries is somehow cheap or easy?

exfascist 5y ago

throwaway5752 5y ago

What you have written is the unrealistic thing. The fact that we have cognitive blinders that tends to try to go between two extremes in the middle, even when one of the extremes ("extreme steps needed to avert climate disaster") is correct and the other is incorrect ("we can't stop using fossil fuel and we should just move people from disaster zones") is incorrect. You are not taking into account the scale and width of the impact of climate change, the effort to implement what you've described, and the breakdown in society that it will cause (along with second order effects). In the early parts of covid there was almost a breakdown in civil order because of a lack of toilet paper. When that is people dying in heatwaves, mass migration, and starvation it will not be possible to handle it in a methodical fashion. We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative.

moonchrome 5y ago
>We can stop using fossil fuels. Electric and renewable can work to replace all our needs, and we can modify our lifestyles otherwise. It isn't great but it is the best alternative. That's such a ridiculous statement in face of recent events - Europe can't even replace fossil fuels imported from Russia in years from now with the insane political will behind such a move - and this is some of the richest countries in the world with very left leaning/pro green energy governments. This isn't replacing fossil fuels - it's replacing one source of fuels used with another.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  There's no call for being insulting. Force majeure supply interruptions (particularly those served by durable infrastructure, like pipelines) are different from rapid but planned shifts. The cutoff of Russian gas to the European market is not very comparable. And really, there is no negotiation or bargaining with the catastrophic climate outcome - it is has no regard to how difficult it will be to move off of fossil fuels. If you want to connect this to European situation, you can see that one nation depends on fossil fuels to maintain geopolitical relevance, and you may look at political parties allied and supported by that nation and the energy policies they support. Since it's extistential for Russia (and US/Saudi petrochemical concerns) to keep people on fossil fuels, they undermine moves off it it. They flood global anti-environment movement with money and delay and obstruct fixing this, and make people believe it is less possible that it is. They are completely ambivalent to what will probably be the death of a majority of the world's population under worst case scenarios before the ended of this century (https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForP...), which is currently the most likely outcome. Anyway, we have change our ways, or doom our children. That's the choice ahead.

thirdwhrldPzz 5y ago

EricE 5y ago

Speaking of moving - isn't climate change supposed to dramatically increase the ocean levels thus induce flooding? Politicians don't seem to have got that memo: https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/peek-inside-the-obamas-new-luxe-marthas-vineyard-mansion/ https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/peek-insi... Or maybe they know the memo's are BS? It's always fun to compare what people say/supposedly believe to what they actually do.