3 ms·

It's pretty disingenuous to use WW2, the largest conflict in human history, as our point of comparison for significant changes. But, go talk to some older peop

It's pretty disingenuous to use WW2, the largest conflict in human history, as our point of comparison for significant changes. But, go talk to some older people that have actually paid attention to the weather. Where I live (SF) they'll talk about how wet and drizzly the winters used to be. In my Mongolian fieldwork they would talk about how the hunting grounds of animals had shifted up into the cooler highlands and how the native grasslands were much more fragile than before. When I was in Canada you could simply look at the ground and see where the glaciers had been, even if you didn't have the pictures from the early 1900s in front of you. Those are all important and noticeable shifts that have happened in a shockingly short time.

photochemsyn 4y ago
WWII (and WWI) could have been avoided by diplomatic negotiation, certainly. Also, very few people would argue that these wars were related to climatic conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, from this point forward, the trajectory of climate change is locked in for the next 100 years, and even a heroic global effort to eliminate fossil fuels in the next few decades will only have the effect of not making it even worse for people 100 years from now. Practically, this means that as many resources will have to be devoted to adaptation to new climate conditions as to transitioning off fossil fuels. Notably, the traditional political messaging claims, e.g. "we're facing a climate crisis and we need to take action now!" just don't match up with scientific reality, in the sense that 'taking action now' won't really have any noticeable effect over the next 50 years at least. Political arguments for renewables like 'cleaning up the air and water' or 'ending dependency on foreign suppliers' would probably be more motivating than 'fixing the climate', because the tipping point has come and gone.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  I'm very confused where you got the idea that I was attributing WW2 to climatic conditions or that I think it was the result of a lack of interest in diplomatic alternatives (the wiki article on Appeasement should disabuse you of this idea if you hold it).

photochemsyn 4y ago

WWII (and WWI) could have been avoided by diplomatic negotiation, certainly. Also, very few people would argue that these wars were related to climatic conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, from this point forward, the trajectory of climate change is locked in for the next 100 years, and even a heroic global effort to eliminate fossil fuels in the next few decades will only have the effect of not making it even worse for people 100 years from now. Practically, this means that as many resources will have to be devoted to adaptation to new climate conditions as to transitioning off fossil fuels. Notably, the traditional political messaging claims, e.g. "we're facing a climate crisis and we need to take action now!" just don't match up with scientific reality, in the sense that 'taking action now' won't really have any noticeable effect over the next 50 years at least. Political arguments for renewables like 'cleaning up the air and water' or 'ending dependency on foreign suppliers' would probably be more motivating than 'fixing the climate', because the tipping point has come and gone.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
I'm very confused where you got the idea that I was attributing WW2 to climatic conditions or that I think it was the result of a lack of interest in diplomatic alternatives (the wiki article on Appeasement should disabuse you of this idea if you hold it).