7 ms·
I personally have zero hope that we'll succeed in mitigating "tipping point", irreversible climate change. I'm less doom-and-gloom about it than most, though, s
by jvanderbot 3y ago
I personally have zero hope that we'll succeed in mitigating "tipping point", irreversible climate change. I'm less doom-and-gloom about it than most, though, since I think we'll find ways to adapt, and a sort of apocalyptic human-ending scenario doesn't seem likely to me.
Don't get me wrong, "adapt" is going to be painful. But I think it will be painful in the way the industrial revolution was painful: Lots and lots of cultural displacement, shifts in lifestyles, etc. But it'll also make some new billionaires and powerhouse industrial centers based around the need to fundamentally change our society to stop making it worse and to solve the problems a heating globe produces.
- lolive 3y agoBye bye Las Vegas…
- hkwerf 3y ago... and India: https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/109174~2228/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-New-Delhi-and-Las-Vegas https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/109174~2228/Comparison-of...
- davidw 3y agoI think that's a huge worry. There is a huge population there that as far as I can tell, can't just 'move a bit north' or something. Plenty of them are not very wealthy so don't have a lot of cash to spend on mitigation. It could get really ugly.
- lolive 3y agoThe Black Plague was a huge population stabiliser in Europe/Asia in the middle ages. Expect something quite equivalent at world scale. Note: btw, it was an absolue nightmarish period to live in !
- hef19898 3y agoApocalyptic in truest sense of the word, followed by post-apocalyptic for a bit. Funny so, that even back then society didn't really collapse into the sorry state TV wants us to believe it would today.
- pstuart 3y ago> It could get really ugly Indeed, and not just there. What pains me the most is that we collectively could be mitigating this with far more vigor but that would be in conflict with the worship of the quarterly profit report.
- davidw 3y agoThere's plenty of local action that can be taken that aren't really about 'quarterly profits'. Does your city have parking mandates, for instance, where developers are required to furnish N parking spots per dwelling unit or store? That kind of thing locks automobile usage in place in suburbia, so that many people are stuck in a lifestyle where they are forced to use an automobile all the time, for everything. And transportation is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
- vkou 3y agoThings like fighting parking mandates nibble on the problem at the edges, are net-positive, but are largely trying to push on a rope. Something like carbon taxes or caps would actually deal with the problem. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of pushback on them.
- davidw 3y agoThe alliances being forged to eliminate things like parking mandates (we just did this in Bend, Oregon!) are great ones to keep pushing for more things.
- revolvingocelot 3y agoI do like this idea, and other ideas like this, but can't help but observe that it's inducing a sort of functional privation without a corresponding counterbalance. We can't just work to "eliminate automobile usage in [...] suburbia" when suburbia's physical affordances don't really allow suburbanites to contend with anything else...
- 3y ago
- toomuchtodo 3y agohttps://www.axios.com/2023/05/23/climate-change-unprecedented-dangerous-heat https://www.axios.com/2023/05/23/climate-change-unprecedente... ("Nearly 2 billion at risk from "unprecedented" climate conditions") > Of note: The study found that if countries only meet existing emissions reductions based on current policies, and warming were to reach 2.7°C by 2100 (4.8°F), the top 5 countries most vulnerable to unprecedented heat (based on the number of people exposed) would be India, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan. > In this scenario, up to a third of humanity would be exposed to such extreme heat and be well outside the human climate niche, the study found. The heat would not hold off until the end of the century, but ratchet up noticeably over time. > The study concludes that for every 0.1°C (0.18°F) increase in global average surface temperatures, another 140 million people will be exposed to dangerous heat.
- miroljub 3y agoI doubt Pakistanis will ever allow them to just "move north". A global war would ensue, where everyone would try to defend their southern borders from the intruders and try to "go north". And billions of deaths will happen out of necessity, since "the north" can't sustain enough food production for 7-8bn of people. And since many would die anyways, every nuclear power will make sure to use their nukes to destroy the ones trying to come from the south and to break up north. In the end, it would be a nuclear war between the USA and Russia trying to use the situation and extend the full control over the Arctic.
- CalRobert 3y agoHaunting expleration of how it could happen at https://www.orbitbooks.net/orbit-excerpts/the-ministry-for-the-future/ https://www.orbitbooks.net/orbit-excerpts/the-ministry-for-t...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mempko 3y agoCivilizations collapsed under less stress. Billionaires exist only if there is a highly organized society. Actually most tech exists only if there is a highly organized society.
- jvanderbot 3y agoI agree. I think we will see some countries degrade, as we do today from climate and conflict. I think there will be more of them and some will be worse. Fundamentally, if you look at the level of suffering due to conflict and climate that already exists, I'm just saying we'll all be more aware of that, and HN readers are much more likely to experience that, vs saying we're all going to end up with Mad Max scenarios.
- nomel 3y ago> as we do today from climate What is this in reference to? Climate deaths are at an all time low [1]. [1] https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate...
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoMetrics like this are skewed by 'warning'. Today there are far fewer deaths by hurricane, but not because hurricanes have gotten smaller, but because we are better at predicting and evacuating. So someone saying 'hey hurricane deaths are down, no problems here', is misleading.
- nomel 3y agoThis is why I ask what they were referring to when they say "see some countries degrade, as we do today from climate". I don't want to have to guess about the specific metric, incorrectly most likely.
- redleggedfrog 3y agoMight seem a bit misanthropic, but us humans probably are just going to be a blip on Earth's history, being the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot. But I suspect that cockroaches will carry on just fine. So at least there is hope for the future.
- runarberg 3y agoThe asteroid that caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event was also just a blip on Earth’s history, it did however succeed in making life on earth miserable for a few thousand years, wiping out 75% of the all the species in the process. In your analogy we are not the frog though, we are the pot, and we are the asteroid, since we are the ones causing the catastrophe. Except on geologic timescales, the pot isn’t slowly being boiled, it is being pressured cooked on a thermo-nuclear reactor. Extinction events are seldomly this sudden and extreme as climate change is currently.
- dylan604 3y ago>Extinction events are seldomly this sudden and extreme as climate change is currently. How do you figure? An asteroid impacting the planet "making life miserable for a few thousand years, wiping out 75%" in seconds of an impact, or a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that happens in seconds/minutes/hours. All of that near instant destruction compared to the 100-200 years of man made pollution on industrial scales.
- jacquesm 3y agoGeologically speaking that is an instant roughly the equivalent of an asteroid impact. Even if for those living through it looks entirely different the outcome is the same.
- dylan604 3y agoSure, speaking cosmological terms, it's like humans never happened. But speaking in terms of what is controllable by those humans, we just had a successful test that we might be able to save ourselves from an asteroid if we have significant amount of notice. Can't really do too much about volcanoes though. Man made pollution is definitely something we have control over and we've had half a century of warnings. Let's not lose sight of the actual conversation when it is still within our control even if we've decided to ignore it. Human extinction is the most probable outcome but that doesn't mean we have to accelerate it and then just shrug our shoulders
- LatteLazy 3y agoI don't think you're "wrong" but... There is just no way to convince 7bn people to all act together. And the global nature of the problem means you need basically everyone, and there is a HUGE incentive to be the one NOT acting.
- pstuart 3y ago[flagged]
- runarberg 3y agoUS doesn’t even need to lead by example. Not killing world saving international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, would be a good start.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoDid any country live up to their Kyoto commitments?
- jacquesm 3y ago'Just asking questions'...
- mistermann 3y ago'Just using thought terminating means to terminate thinking and maximize persuasion'... I mean, it could work, but what if it doesn't? Is there some point that we start thinking about a Plan B?
- pstuart 3y agoYes it does. It had made itself "the world's police" and has a long and sordid history in interfering with the affairs of other nations. But for the sacrifices and investments required, it's ludicrous to say "this needs to be done" and not actually do it.
- baq 3y agoI personally just hope we’ll stop before we break cloud formation. https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...
- hammock 3y agoStop what?
- pmg102 3y agoIncreasing atmospheric CO2 levels
- ipaddr 3y agoDoesn't it say emissions would have to be 3x greater tham today and maybe it's a possibility after that point?
- Kuinox 3y agoNo, concentration. It need 3x the current CO2 in the air to reach it.
- simmerup 3y agoWhich considering that 50% of total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were emitted in the last 28 years, that doesn't seem to far away
- shkkmo 3y agoAnd in those 28 years, CO2 levels have risen < 100ppm. That is less than 1/9th of the rise needed to reach the 1200ppm levels that this model predicts is necessary to disrupt cloud formation. As the paper itself clarifies, the worst case model for CO2 emissions still wouldn't have us hit those levels for 75 years. > If fossil fuel use continues to rapidly expand over the remainder of the century, it is possible levels could get that high. The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century. So yes, it is a scary theoretical possibility. One that helps show why even minor mitigations of CO2 emissions growth are better than nothing. However, it is a risk that is not imminent and is something that even our current anemic response to global warming will probably avoid.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI see zero reason why humans could not succeed in dealing with climate change. Will we be able to control the climate fully - no, but probably get closer to engineering our planet properly rather than by accident.
- undersuit 3y agoIt's totally feasible. Is it reasonable? As we pour more energy into our climate it's going to become more chaotic and as more people become displaced by weather events our production capabilities will be diminished and redirected. Not acting now means we'll have to act more aggressively in the future under more adverse conditions... like controlling the weather to make sure we get a successful harvest of food.
- RandomLensman 3y agoThe current approaches often don't sell well politically, so we need to plan for different contingencies. That doesn't mean the decarbonization won't happen but that it might need different political agreements, perhaps different technological setups, cost sharing mechanism etc. - but that will delay things, highlighting again the need for contingency approaches.
- undersuit 3y ago[flagged]
- nomel 3y agoHow?
- civilitty 3y ago[flagged]
- candiddevmike 3y agoGovernments governmenting.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nomel 3y agoDo you have an example of a government that has intentionally and dramatically reduce the standard of living, and take away the luxuries that their citizens have become accustomed to, with success, while maintaining a democracy and the freedom of its citizens? Related, I think China will have a much easier time enacting change.
- SuoDuanDao 3y ago[flagged]
- Aunche 3y agoThe reason we have billionaires is because they (or their parents) provided a service that other people wanted. Societies that went out of their way to prevent purge potential billionaires, were even more willing to sacrifice the environment for even smaller short term gain, such deforestation to fuel smelters during the Great Leap Forward. If billionaires magically disappeared, Jimbo still would rather spend his money on an F150 instead of a heat pump installation.
- avgcorrection 3y agoBright sides: It’ll make new billionaires and industrial centers. Oh right, forgot where I was commenting.
- atkailash 3y ago[dead]
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y agoSome years ago I got to the point where I think it's inevitable that we'll burn all the oil, coal, etc, and we'll just engage in geoengineering to try to mitigate it. And people in the low income world will suffer the worst effects while the wealthy continue to live in air conditioned glass towers.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- irthomasthomas 3y agoI'm looking forward to the end of this ice age.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoUpside is it’s certainly reversible climate change. Downside is humans might not be around to see the reversion. (Possibly the upside if you take the perspective of all other life on earth)
- forgetfreeman 3y agoNot gonna lie, based on what the pandemic revealed to me about real human nature I think it'd be in everyone's best interest for our species to go extinct and give evolution a few hundred million years to take another crack at sentient tool-using apex predators based on some other gene line. Primates just aren't panning out.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoMaybe apex predator is the problem. I imagine sentient tool using rabbits wouldn’t do this sort of stuff.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoNo argument there.
- audiodude 3y agoIn 2010 we needed to act "before 2020" which seemed like plenty of time. I'm convinced we already have met the "tipping point". No one wants to say that though because it would be either admitting climate change is real, or admitting defeat.
- simmerup 3y agoThere's plenty of billionaires creating bugout fortresses with private security contractors to keep them safe. For the elites maybe success means something different to us.
- cduzz 3y agoI'm not sure why they think they'd be safe with such a thing. A billionaire is only a billionaire if there's a society to be richer than 99.9999% of everyone else. If wealth is measured by how much ammo you've got, your bank account or the fact that you have lawyers on retainer won't mean much.
- vkou 3y agoThe wealthy have over the past few thousands of years figured out that they can pay half the poor to keep the other half in line. Despotism is the norm, not the exception in human societies. A brief blip of liberal democracy has only been made possible by a surplus of resources created by industrialization. If that surplus disappears, or gets fully siphoned up by the elites, we'll be right back to times of feudal lords, their knight-enforcers, and everyone else.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago^ Depressingly accurate.
- maxerickson 3y agoYeah, but what are they paying the security force in after the apocalypse? More or less, in comfort. Guess what lots of people that are getting paid in comfort are gonna do? They are gonna try to take control.
- jeremyjh 3y agoOne likely adaptation is the deaths of a few billion people from famine and resource wars.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoShitty, grim, blood-soaked first thought in response to your comment: I read something 30 years ago that suggested the maximum sustainable "utopian" carry capacity of the planet was something like 3 billion humans. Regardless of the accuracy of that claim deleting a sizeable percentage of the world population is technically the most effective strategy we have for seriously reducing carbon emissions.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoWe have, arguably, proven that correct -- 7, going on 8 billion isn't sustainable, and most people are broke as fuck. Purging a few hyperwealthy types won't change how much carbon is generated by 8 billion humans.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoI wasn't proposing we purge -only- the hyperwealthy.
- locallost 3y agoThis has become a very popular opinion lately. The mainstream skepticism of if climate change exists has been replaced with it. But it's false. If we can't adapt to consuming or driving less how are we going to adapt to e.g. cycles of droughts and floods? It's become such a popular opinion that I wonder if it's being pushed.
- ivalm 3y agoI think it’s kind of obvious. We can’t adapt to consuming less because there is no immediate cost. We can adapt to droughts because it would force migration of people away from areas without water because those that won’t will either not have access to water or spend a lot for water (a direct cost). Mitigation might be cheaper, but disasters that already happen have more clear incentives.
- locallost 3y agoI'd say it's "we think we can adapt to climate change".
- ivalm 3y agoAt the end of the day, earth will not become entirely uninhabitable. The rich portions of humanity will have to migrate and pay expensive mitigation, the poor portions will suffer and many will die. It’s terrible that we aren’t addressing issues early but it’s hard to see how we fail to adapt. At worst I think we see total excess deaths around two billion (which is a lot! but basically let’s us discount most of Africa and a few hundred mil from Asia and Americas).
- 2000UltraDeluxe 3y agoIt's easy to say when others feel the same way, but I'd like to believe it's mostly a matter of adapting expectations to reality since there's no realistic way to get 8 billion people agree to what the proper way forward is. We have less than 100 million people living a lifestyle that 7900 million people try to achieve. A few prominent people on the top blames it on the 1500 million or so, that have managed to achieve what most of us call basic decent living. Yes, the bar has gone up the last 30 years. Significantly. Yes, many would be fine on 1990-levels. Many wouldn't. The next 5 billion or so work hard to catch up regardless, and they're offsetting anything the smaller part does, by the sheer amount of growth. The poorest 1½ billion that's left are mostly trying to survive. The rest of us could have done _something_, but it's the ones who are worst off that'll take the worst blow. I'm over 40, and learnt about this in school over 30 years ago. My grandparent's generation knew, and did nothing. My parent's generation are still struggling with basic things like throwing glass and metal in a separate container for recycling. The time for solving this with wonderful technological innovation has come and gone. We _could_ try to force some kind of return to sustenance farming, but previous attempts at such social engineering have ended in near-genocide. And so, all that is left is to deal with the consequences of deciscions that were taken long ago. The good thing is that more and more people agree about climate change being real. We might have screwed up preventing disaster, but at least we still have a chance to dampen the impact.
- zackees 3y ago[dead]
- RGamma 3y agoThat thought actually frightens me, because we would get away with negligently exterminating all these other life forms, part of which has already happened. If there's any justice in this universe we will follow them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]