4 ms·

Do you want people to explain why climate change is urgent, here in a comment? Your links don't say "climate change isn't a problem," they just have a tiny bit

Do you want people to explain why climate change is urgent, here in a comment? Your links don't say "climate change isn't a problem," they just have a tiny bit of data out of context, that very few people here have the ability to fully understand as to how they may or may not relate to climate change. Do you really think the fact that agricultural output has increased over time says much about climate change, vs. technology and population and such? Or that a 2 degree temperature change in England is a) not a problem, just because a 2 degree temperature change seems minor, or b) is really going to give non-scientists a good perspective on something like this? Unless you understand all the things involved, you really need to let the scientists do an analysis on the data, rather than your seat-of-the-pants approach. If you don't want to trust the scientists, great, but just showing a tiny bit of data and extrapolating a conclusion based on intuition probably doesn't cut it. The below is just pasted from Wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. You can follow the citations if you go to the article. Sure, it's a politicized issue so you'll always find a few on the other side. But the vast majority of scientists agree with this: Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common. Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes. Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct. Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and warmer, more acidic oceans.

tempestn 4y ago
Not to mention the choice of England as an example, where there was literally a record-breaking heatwave this summer that killed thousands of people. Reminds me of this: https://deadline.com/2022/07/uk-tv-interview-dont-look-up-climate-change-1235073308/ https://deadline.com/2022/07/uk-tv-interview-dont-look-up-cl...
- cimi_ 4y ago
  The article you linked says: > Hammond was right, of course, on his primary counts, as well: the temperature topped 40 degrees at London’s Heathrow airport and over 1,500 people died across Europe as a result of the heat wave. There was 'literally' one day of temperatures over 40, in a couple of places. I didn't see any data on deaths, but it wasn't 'thousands'. Before anyone jumps, I believe in climate change :) I just think this hyperbole isn't helpful.
  - tempestn 4y ago
    Depends how you count. I believe it was 1500 directly attributed, and about 3000 excess deaths. I don't think I said anything hyperbolic or inaccurate.
    - cimi_ 4y ago
      The article says 1500 in Europe, I read your message to mean 'in England'.
      - tempestn 4y ago
        I was referring to England, and based the "thousands" comment on this report: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... > To date, 3,271 excess deaths have been recorded during heat-periods in 2022 in England and Wales. This is an average of 82 excess deaths per day, and 6.2% higher than the five-year average. The heat-period with the largest number of excess deaths was H2 (10 to 25 July) with 2,227 excess deaths (10.4% above average), an average of 139 excess deaths per day. And my point was that it is striking to talk about how climate change is no big deal in England in this context.
        prottog 4y ago
        A couple thousand excess deaths of people near the end of their lifespan, in a country with over 67 million people? Forgive me if I don't find this alarming.
prottog 4y ago
Yes, I want people to justify their complex policy positions that have far-reaching consequences, here in a comment. Why else are we on this forum? It's not like I'm asking people to justify that two and two make four. Heat waves, wildfires, melting permafrost and sea ice, stronger storms -- OK, that's fine, I'm not disputing that these things are happening. But what is the human toll of these things compared against the literal billions of lives uplifted from terrible poverty in the global fossil fuel-based capitalist(ish) economy? That is the question I keep asking and to which I never seem to get a clear answer. The time, effort, and resources we spend on de-carbonizing the global economy (or whatever other mitigation efforts are being studied and suggested) are time, effort, and resources that have alternative uses that could also benefit humanity. I wish to examine those alternative uses and the marginal cost at each level of mitigation. What I keep getting instead are categorical assertions that we are all doomed (literally, as in civilizational collapse) if we don't repent our ways and not much more than vague handwaving that renewable energy will be cheaper, more abundant, and easier to use. I want an answer to the question: how do we bring the roughly half of the world living on a few bucks a day to first-world living standards? As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.
- felix_n 4y ago
  Why would you assume no conflict exists between the goals of all the worlds peoples "living like Texans," and preventing environmental catastrophe? The Earth is facing serious climate change just from a plurality of humans living rampantly consumerist lifestyles, I don't think more of that is in the cards unless the number of humans drastically shrinks.
  - prottog 4y ago
    Let me be clear and say that "living like Texans" is a shorthand for a first-world standard of living, with maybe a touch of extravagance thrown in. I'm not advocating that everyone do in fact live like Texans if they don't want to! People should be free to live like monks if they want. But actual people on the ground, especially if that ground is in places that aren't as developed, do in fact want higher standards of living. I do not see myself as having the moral authority to tell them that they cannot have it because of environmental reasons. I'd rather leave it up to them to decide whether they want to "drill, baby, drill" now and live with the possibility of facing the music later, or keep living in huts.

tempestn 4y ago

Not to mention the choice of England as an example, where there was literally a record-breaking heatwave this summer that killed thousands of people. Reminds me of this: https://deadline.com/2022/07/uk-tv-interview-dont-look-up-climate-change-1235073308/ https://deadline.com/2022/07/uk-tv-interview-dont-look-up-cl...

cimi_ 4y ago
The article you linked says: > Hammond was right, of course, on his primary counts, as well: the temperature topped 40 degrees at London’s Heathrow airport and over 1,500 people died across Europe as a result of the heat wave. There was 'literally' one day of temperatures over 40, in a couple of places. I didn't see any data on deaths, but it wasn't 'thousands'. Before anyone jumps, I believe in climate change :) I just think this hyperbole isn't helpful.
- tempestn 4y ago
  Depends how you count. I believe it was 1500 directly attributed, and about 3000 excess deaths. I don't think I said anything hyperbolic or inaccurate.
  - cimi_ 4y ago
    The article says 1500 in Europe, I read your message to mean 'in England'.
    - tempestn 4y ago
      I was referring to England, and based the "thousands" comment on this report: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/excessmortalityduringheatperiods/englandandwales1juneto31august2022 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... > To date, 3,271 excess deaths have been recorded during heat-periods in 2022 in England and Wales. This is an average of 82 excess deaths per day, and 6.2% higher than the five-year average. The heat-period with the largest number of excess deaths was H2 (10 to 25 July) with 2,227 excess deaths (10.4% above average), an average of 139 excess deaths per day. And my point was that it is striking to talk about how climate change is no big deal in England in this context.
      - prottog 4y ago
        A couple thousand excess deaths of people near the end of their lifespan, in a country with over 67 million people? Forgive me if I don't find this alarming.

prottog 4y ago

Yes, I want people to justify their complex policy positions that have far-reaching consequences, here in a comment. Why else are we on this forum? It's not like I'm asking people to justify that two and two make four. Heat waves, wildfires, melting permafrost and sea ice, stronger storms -- OK, that's fine, I'm not disputing that these things are happening. But what is the human toll of these things compared against the literal billions of lives uplifted from terrible poverty in the global fossil fuel-based capitalist(ish) economy? That is the question I keep asking and to which I never seem to get a clear answer. The time, effort, and resources we spend on de-carbonizing the global economy (or whatever other mitigation efforts are being studied and suggested) are time, effort, and resources that have alternative uses that could also benefit humanity. I wish to examine those alternative uses and the marginal cost at each level of mitigation. What I keep getting instead are categorical assertions that we are all doomed (literally, as in civilizational collapse) if we don't repent our ways and not much more than vague handwaving that renewable energy will be cheaper, more abundant, and easier to use. I want an answer to the question: how do we bring the roughly half of the world living on a few bucks a day to first-world living standards? As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.

felix_n 4y ago
Why would you assume no conflict exists between the goals of all the worlds peoples "living like Texans," and preventing environmental catastrophe? The Earth is facing serious climate change just from a plurality of humans living rampantly consumerist lifestyles, I don't think more of that is in the cards unless the number of humans drastically shrinks.
- prottog 4y ago
  Let me be clear and say that "living like Texans" is a shorthand for a first-world standard of living, with maybe a touch of extravagance thrown in. I'm not advocating that everyone do in fact live like Texans if they don't want to! People should be free to live like monks if they want. But actual people on the ground, especially if that ground is in places that aren't as developed, do in fact want higher standards of living. I do not see myself as having the moral authority to tell them that they cannot have it because of environmental reasons. I'd rather leave it up to them to decide whether they want to "drill, baby, drill" now and live with the possibility of facing the music later, or keep living in huts.