5 ms·

A grim thought, but in 50 years time when a lot of the planet is uninhabitably hot, does that reduce emissions, by virtue of, you know, there not being people t

A grim thought, but in 50 years time when a lot of the planet is uninhabitably hot, does that reduce emissions, by virtue of, you know, there not being people to stoke the fires?

unlikelymordant 5y ago
There is a force in the opposite direction, because all the tree carbon and soil carbon currently stored in those areas will likely burn or decay, increasing total atmospheric carbon. Also permafrost melting will release huge amounts of methane. Lots of positive feedback loops that will be going independent of burning fossil fuels.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  locks and loads clathrate gun
  - iknownothow 5y ago
    Thanks, that was a fun read. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
snek_case 5y ago
It's probably not that simple. If you have food shortages and displaced populations as a result in climate change, then you might get an increase in poverty. More poverty means less education, and less access to things like birth control. So you could see somewhat of an acceleration in population growth and energy demand as a result.
- sumedh 5y ago
  > So you could see somewhat of an acceleration in population growth and energy demand as a result. but poor people dont consume as much energy as rich Westerners.
wcoenen 5y ago
Reducing emissions may not have the effect you might think. First, once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time (centuries to millennia). So stopping emissions would not stop the heat. Second, emissions also contain sulfer dioxide, which has a cooling effect through the formation of sulfate aerosols. These do not stay in the atmosphere for very long (only weeks). So in a scenario where these emissions stop, the immediate result would be a loss of that cooling effect and thus even more heat.
vkou 5y ago
Most carbon pollution comes from the global north, most of which will still be inhabitable long after the tropics aren't. Food security is another quesiton.

A grim thought, but in 50 years time when a lot of the planet is uninhabitably hot, does that reduce emissions, by virtue of, you know, there not being people to stoke the fires?

unlikelymordant 5y ago

There is a force in the opposite direction, because all the tree carbon and soil carbon currently stored in those areas will likely burn or decay, increasing total atmospheric carbon. Also permafrost melting will release huge amounts of methane. Lots of positive feedback loops that will be going independent of burning fossil fuels.

moffkalast 5y ago
locks and loads clathrate gun
- iknownothow 5y ago
  Thanks, that was a fun read. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

snek_case 5y ago

It's probably not that simple. If you have food shortages and displaced populations as a result in climate change, then you might get an increase in poverty. More poverty means less education, and less access to things like birth control. So you could see somewhat of an acceleration in population growth and energy demand as a result.

sumedh 5y ago
> So you could see somewhat of an acceleration in population growth and energy demand as a result. but poor people dont consume as much energy as rich Westerners.

wcoenen 5y ago

Reducing emissions may not have the effect you might think. First, once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time (centuries to millennia). So stopping emissions would not stop the heat. Second, emissions also contain sulfer dioxide, which has a cooling effect through the formation of sulfate aerosols. These do not stay in the atmosphere for very long (only weeks). So in a scenario where these emissions stop, the immediate result would be a loss of that cooling effect and thus even more heat.

vkou 5y ago

Most carbon pollution comes from the global north, most of which will still be inhabitable long after the tropics aren't. Food security is another quesiton.