Thanks. > I think that the sheer amount of available negentropy that we are ignoring makes it inevitable that someone will find a solution The problem is tha

Thanks. > I think that the sheer amount of available negentropy that we are ignoring makes it inevitable that someone will find a solution The problem is that negentropy is not the limiting factor. Obviously solutions exist for long-term sustainable energy sources. We even know what they are: Solar. Wind. Batteries. The limiting factor is not knowledge nor negentropy, it's socio-political. We (i.e. pretty much the whole planet) have to implement a solution before the climate changes to the point where there are large-scale planet-wide crop failures. That is the part I am not optimistic about. I don't think our current socio-political structure can handle a global famine, and it also doesn't seem to be capable of allocating the economic sacrifice needed to avoid one. The thing that scares me most is that the rate of change in the climate is much much faster than I ever expected it to be. Twelve years ago my wife and I moved from LA to SF thinking that would be enough to escape the worst effects. But just in those twelve years I've seen dramatic changes in the climate here. We've gone from reliably wet winters to unprecedented drought and heat in just over a decade. That scares the holy bejesus out of me because if you extrapolate that rate of change into the future we're looking at a very real possibility of global famine before I die, and I'm not that young. The other thing that scares me is the melting permafrost and concomitant release of methane. That is a genie that will not go easily back into its bottle. (That is the reason I say that even cutting emissions to zero tomorrow will not solve the problem. The permafrost melting seems irreversible to me at this point.)