4 ms·
worst case if we try to address the problem and it doesn’t come to fruition is that we improve the environment around us worst case if we don’t address the pro
by micromacrofoot 4y ago
worst case if we try to address the problem and it doesn’t come to fruition is that we improve the environment around us
worst case if we don’t address the problem and it does come to fruition is mass famine
- coffeeblack 4y agoNo, worst case is that “climate change” is used as an excuse to destroy democracy and rule of law “to save the world”, because radicalised people attack anybody who even sounds like they may have any doubt. It wouldn’t be the first time a true and just cause was abused for that end.
- bowsamic 4y agoWhat makes you think that's the worst case outcome of climate change?
- 988747 4y agoBecause that's the one that actually can happen, unlike apocalyptic visions of "Earth burning", or "famine"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 4y agoYou think famines are unlikely? They've been the irregular default prior to the modern age; I think it will require active efforts to prevent them no matter what happens with the climate.
- 988747 4y agoClimate change might actually increase amount of arable land, by millions of acres, in higher latitudes: Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Canada, etc. It will also increase total rainfall. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-climate-arable.html https://phys.org/news/2018-05-climate-arable.html Yes, it won't be seamless, but we can adjust to new conditions.
- marketneutral 4y ago"I'd rather watch the Earth burn than let 'wokeness' ruin the ideals of free market capitalism!"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jandrese 4y agoPlease cite any instances where serious climate change activists threatened democracy or the rule of law or even discussed it. It would be completely counterproductive. One of the biggest problems with Climate Change is that it requires mass collective action, and that requires a stable and rational government or organize. Were climate change activists to promote anarchy it would be impossible for them to achieve their goals.
- 988747 4y agoThey do not promote anarchy, they promote totalitarian rule. Put all those 'climate change deniers' in prison, force them to eat bugs instead of meat, deny them any human rights, that kind of thing.
- jandrese 4y agoSo when you say a "threat to rule of law" you mean too much law? That seems confusingly worded.
- coffeeblack 4y agoOnce people are sufficiently radicalised, laws are not required anymore to put an “enemy” in prison (or worse). For most young Westerners who have never known anything but rule of law, that’s probably difficult to imagine.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoliterally no one with power has seriously proposed anything like this — quite the opposite in fact, the previous US president suggested that windmills cause cancer
- specialist 4y agoForgive me for interrupting your attempts to refute the "Liberal Fascism" trolling... One scenario I've heard, and has me a bit worried, is climate crisis begets a right wing reactionary environmentalism. Basically all the same nativist, anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-trade, yadda yadda, but with an "environmental" justification. So instead of mitigating or undoing the damage, the reactionaries would be energized by protecting what we have from "the other". Not too hard to imagine a crackdown, if scarcity leads to hunger leads to unrest.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoIf ecofascism triumphs over the current surge of ethnonationalism I'll still take that as a win. Doesn't seem likely though given current events and the totality of human history though.
- coffeeblack 4y agoCould you imagine that their might be a third alternative?
- micromacrofoot 4y agoOh of course, I don't think either of those scenarios will actually come to fruition.
- coffeeblack 4y ago*there
- HardlyCurious 4y agoThis isnt completely true. The biggest greenhouse gas CO2 is not a pollutant in any conventional sense. The gas is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants grow faster, and helps plants grow in more arid environments, and reduces water consumption by plants. So efforts to reduce CO2 might not bear environmental benefits beyond fighting global warming.
- jandrese 4y agoIt's pumped into greenhouses because they have to be sealed to prevent heat from escaping. In nature plants aren't CO2 limited, typically they are either nutrient, light, or usually water limited; and the warming planet is exacerbating water distribution issues. Increasing CO2 does little to increase plant growth because the bottleneck is elsewhere.
- HardlyCurious 4y agoPlants lose less water to the environment when CO2 concentrations are higher because they don't have to open their pores as much to effectively breath. That is why CO2 helps plants grow in more arid environments. And CO2 is definitely not pumped into greenhouses to help them stay warm. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and the tens of vertical feet in a greenhouse couldn't possibly trap any measurable amount of heat from heightened CO2 concentrations. The glass of a greenhouse is responsible for the 'greenhouse' effect, not CO2.
- jandrese 4y agoHeat lost due to convection. Let in cold air and the greenhouse cools off.
- HardlyCurious 4y agoJust to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying they CO2 in as an alternative to having the greenhouse ventilate to the atmosphere? I guess the reason being that the plants would convert all the CO2 to O2 in the greenhouse and then suffocate without the vent or pumped CO2. Is that the most economical way to keep the greenhouse warm enough? There are heat exchangers which are passive devices you can attached to an intake and exhaust to reclaim heat.