4 ms·

I mean, it could seriously threaten crop yields and thus our ability to feed ourselves. Maybe it won't wipe out everyone - but like 90% of the population. That

I mean, it could seriously threaten crop yields and thus our ability to feed ourselves. Maybe it won't wipe out everyone - but like 90% of the population. That's still an absolute nightmare. It's just a threat on an entirely different scale to everything else we are facing.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> still an absolute nightmare Sure. But it's not extinction. One of the contributors to the current crisis was decades of environmental messaging predicting imminent and epic disaster. When that didn't come voters tuned out.
gruez 4y ago
>Maybe it won't wipe out everyone - but like 90% of the population. That's still an absolute nightmare. source? the IPCC is estimating GDP reduction of a few percentage points by 2100[1]. That's not really consistent with "like 90% of the population" being "wipe out". [1] https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=347 https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=34...
- schnitzelstoat 4y ago
  Those forecasts are about CO2 stabilisation - so when we've actually taken action to get to net zero. The aim was to show that we could get to net zero without tanking the economy. Those aren't the effects of climate change on GDP - which is predicted to be -63.9% by 2100 [1] [1] https://reliefweb.int/report/world/lost-damaged-study-economic-impact-climate-change-vulnerable-countries-november-2021 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/lost-damaged-study-econom...
weakfish 4y ago
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a credible source that predicts that level of catastrophe. I like to read Climate Feedback[0], a website where scientists review media claims on climate. 95% are fact checking denialists, but some are the opposite, fact checking claims that severely overstate the danger. The problem is that overstated danger muddles the message and gives further ammunition to deniers to dunk of the whole movement for green energy. [0] https://climatefeedback.org/ https://climatefeedback.org/

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> still an absolute nightmare Sure. But it's not extinction. One of the contributors to the current crisis was decades of environmental messaging predicting imminent and epic disaster. When that didn't come voters tuned out.

gruez 4y ago

>Maybe it won't wipe out everyone - but like 90% of the population. That's still an absolute nightmare. source? the IPCC is estimating GDP reduction of a few percentage points by 2100[1]. That's not really consistent with "like 90% of the population" being "wipe out". [1] https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=347 https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=34...

schnitzelstoat 4y ago
Those forecasts are about CO2 stabilisation - so when we've actually taken action to get to net zero. The aim was to show that we could get to net zero without tanking the economy. Those aren't the effects of climate change on GDP - which is predicted to be -63.9% by 2100 [1] [1] https://reliefweb.int/report/world/lost-damaged-study-economic-impact-climate-change-vulnerable-countries-november-2021 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/lost-damaged-study-econom...

weakfish 4y ago

I think you’d be hard pressed to find a credible source that predicts that level of catastrophe. I like to read Climate Feedback[0], a website where scientists review media claims on climate. 95% are fact checking denialists, but some are the opposite, fact checking claims that severely overstate the danger. The problem is that overstated danger muddles the message and gives further ammunition to deniers to dunk of the whole movement for green energy. [0] https://climatefeedback.org/ https://climatefeedback.org/