3 ms·

I don't know, but this: > The next natural equilibrium probably includes a decimated world population. Is obvious speculation and likely hyperbole.

by timr 4y ago

burkaman 4y ago
It doesn't seem hyperbolic to me, and I don't understand the addition of "short timeframe". "next natural equilibrium" implies something like 100 years to me, at least. I am very concerned about climate change even though I understand it's not going to directly kill me in 10 years.
- timr 4y ago
  Let's be really clear: it's not going to "directly" kill many people at all in the next ten years. People will die from things like storms and floods and heat waves and droughts. Maybe more people will die from causes that someone, somewhere attributes to climate, but these are all indirect. The real, immediate threat of climate is that we'll have to spend huge amounts of money mitigating these things.
  - mbgerring 4y ago
    The “real, immediate threat of climate” is trillions of dollars changing hands? A massive TAM, with tons of otherwise intelligent people distracted by chatbots and crypto? Sorry… this is supposed to be a threat? What are you threatening me with, a good time?
    - timr 4y ago
      I mean, yes? I'd personally rather see money spent on housing and feeding and educating people than building new seawalls. Particularly in places like Bangladesh, which are both poor and low-lying. The collective delusion of the climate conversation is that first-world countries are going to be the ones who suffer, but that isn't what the risk looks like at all. For example, New York City will be OK, even though mass media loves to show apocalyptic visions of the climate future set in lower Manhattan.
- ratboy666 4y ago
  Not hyperbolic. What is NOT factored in by the IPCC is the effect of NOT using "fossil fuels". Agriculture is affected. NOT using fossil fuels simply means no fertilizer. Famine killing 1 billion would be expected. So -- bad if you do, bad if you don't. My "bet" is simple. I simply purchased natural gas stocks. The bet is that the need for fertilizer will beat the "stop fossil fuels". Because, if it doesn't, the money is worthless. If it does, I will be "sitting pretty". If a billion people die "one way or the other", I am going with my comfort, and my childrens comfort.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    Please read some of these reports before you say stuff like this. Of course they factor this in, of course it isn't true that you need fossil fuels to make fertilizer, of course the IPCC does not advocate eliminating fertilizer use. Producing ammonia is one of the primary uses for hydrogen discussed in the reports. There are many companies doing this as we speak (Yara, CF Industries, BP). If it turns out to be too difficult to scale up or become cost effective, then fertilizer production will be one of the last sectors to use fossil fuels. That's ok, because there are so many other sectors that we can decarbonize right now.
    - ratboy666 4y ago
      I agree with you. But I caution -- shipping lng is not something that Canada does or will do. Canada's stated goal is to TRY to ship hydrogen. Dangerous as that is. Yes, fertilizer production becomes "one of the last sectors to use fossil fuels". I see no other path. Of course, THAT has to be transported. As does the food produced... That entire chain relies on fossil fuels. A simple bet -- I invest in NatGas and pipelines. The IPCC may not advocate fertilizer reduction... Canada does. No LNG to Europe (for now). Canadian farmers are told to cut fertilizer use by 50%... or else. Market and production controls will be put into place. And, it is NOT CLEAR that the current perturbations are CO2 related: Snow in Miami on Jan 19, 1977 would be an interesting case (in my lifetime, anyway). As to the IPCC reports AND the local media reaction -- the Toronto Star reports that Canada will have to CUT CO2 emissions in half. Here are the numbers: 2T per year for each human: 840lbs to 6710lbs (resting to active) exhalation. Which means, not below 0.5T/year/human. We are at 20T/year/human here in Canada -- but, of course, at 8953 trees/human, with each tree absorbing 48lbs of CO2/year, Canada absorbs 215T/year/human (carbon negative in Canada by 195T/year/human). Cutting in half? 10T/year pure human, or 205T/year. But, we are on track to "100 by 100" that is, the Federal Govt here wants 100M people in Canada by 2100. With an additional 30M people (putting the immigration growth in line with the climate objectives), the budget for each human is... well under 5T/year. Not just 1/2, 1/4 (by the specified date) How is THAT to be accomplished? What is interesting (if you have been following the numbers here) is that EVEN at the target date, NO MATTER WHAT the Government does, Canada is still "Carbon Negative". Go figure. It isn't even a problem here. Solar, I guess... Won't be wind here... Oh, we are too far North for Solar to be that effective. Burn trees , just like our ancestors. That goes over really well... My bet is NatGas. Maybe Nuclear.

I don't know, but this: > The next natural equilibrium probably includes a decimated world population. Is obvious speculation and likely hyperbole.

by timr 4y ago

I don't know, but this: > The next natural equilibrium probably includes a decimated world population. Is obvious speculation and likely hyperbole.

burkaman 4y ago

It doesn't seem hyperbolic to me, and I don't understand the addition of "short timeframe". "next natural equilibrium" implies something like 100 years to me, at least. I am very concerned about climate change even though I understand it's not going to directly kill me in 10 years.

timr 4y ago
Let's be really clear: it's not going to "directly" kill many people at all in the next ten years. People will die from things like storms and floods and heat waves and droughts. Maybe more people will die from causes that someone, somewhere attributes to climate, but these are all indirect. The real, immediate threat of climate is that we'll have to spend huge amounts of money mitigating these things.
- mbgerring 4y ago
  The “real, immediate threat of climate” is trillions of dollars changing hands? A massive TAM, with tons of otherwise intelligent people distracted by chatbots and crypto? Sorry… this is supposed to be a threat? What are you threatening me with, a good time?
  - timr 4y ago
    I mean, yes? I'd personally rather see money spent on housing and feeding and educating people than building new seawalls. Particularly in places like Bangladesh, which are both poor and low-lying. The collective delusion of the climate conversation is that first-world countries are going to be the ones who suffer, but that isn't what the risk looks like at all. For example, New York City will be OK, even though mass media loves to show apocalyptic visions of the climate future set in lower Manhattan.
ratboy666 4y ago
Not hyperbolic. What is NOT factored in by the IPCC is the effect of NOT using "fossil fuels". Agriculture is affected. NOT using fossil fuels simply means no fertilizer. Famine killing 1 billion would be expected. So -- bad if you do, bad if you don't. My "bet" is simple. I simply purchased natural gas stocks. The bet is that the need for fertilizer will beat the "stop fossil fuels". Because, if it doesn't, the money is worthless. If it does, I will be "sitting pretty". If a billion people die "one way or the other", I am going with my comfort, and my childrens comfort.
- burkaman 4y ago
  Please read some of these reports before you say stuff like this. Of course they factor this in, of course it isn't true that you need fossil fuels to make fertilizer, of course the IPCC does not advocate eliminating fertilizer use. Producing ammonia is one of the primary uses for hydrogen discussed in the reports. There are many companies doing this as we speak (Yara, CF Industries, BP). If it turns out to be too difficult to scale up or become cost effective, then fertilizer production will be one of the last sectors to use fossil fuels. That's ok, because there are so many other sectors that we can decarbonize right now.
  - ratboy666 4y ago
    I agree with you. But I caution -- shipping lng is not something that Canada does or will do. Canada's stated goal is to TRY to ship hydrogen. Dangerous as that is. Yes, fertilizer production becomes "one of the last sectors to use fossil fuels". I see no other path. Of course, THAT has to be transported. As does the food produced... That entire chain relies on fossil fuels. A simple bet -- I invest in NatGas and pipelines. The IPCC may not advocate fertilizer reduction... Canada does. No LNG to Europe (for now). Canadian farmers are told to cut fertilizer use by 50%... or else. Market and production controls will be put into place. And, it is NOT CLEAR that the current perturbations are CO2 related: Snow in Miami on Jan 19, 1977 would be an interesting case (in my lifetime, anyway). As to the IPCC reports AND the local media reaction -- the Toronto Star reports that Canada will have to CUT CO2 emissions in half. Here are the numbers: 2T per year for each human: 840lbs to 6710lbs (resting to active) exhalation. Which means, not below 0.5T/year/human. We are at 20T/year/human here in Canada -- but, of course, at 8953 trees/human, with each tree absorbing 48lbs of CO2/year, Canada absorbs 215T/year/human (carbon negative in Canada by 195T/year/human). Cutting in half? 10T/year pure human, or 205T/year. But, we are on track to "100 by 100" that is, the Federal Govt here wants 100M people in Canada by 2100. With an additional 30M people (putting the immigration growth in line with the climate objectives), the budget for each human is... well under 5T/year. Not just 1/2, 1/4 (by the specified date) How is THAT to be accomplished? What is interesting (if you have been following the numbers here) is that EVEN at the target date, NO MATTER WHAT the Government does, Canada is still "Carbon Negative". Go figure. It isn't even a problem here. Solar, I guess... Won't be wind here... Oh, we are too far North for Solar to be that effective. Burn trees , just like our ancestors. That goes over really well... My bet is NatGas. Maybe Nuclear.