4 ms·

“We are acting too slow”. This is the key question. What is the optimal response? Too fast and we collapse the systems we will need to adapt. Too slow and we wi

“We are acting too slow”. This is the key question. What is the optimal response? Too fast and we collapse the systems we will need to adapt. Too slow and we will not be able to adapt. The predictions that make you anxious are very uncertain or very far in the future. Being precautions you feel compelled to act ‘quickly.’ But in the history of climate responses rash policies have made problems worse. Take biofuel subsidies causing food shortages in the 3rd world. Or sulphate emissions reductions causing warming over the last 5 years! When we reflexively act without a consistent model with validated assumptions then we do ourselves a disservice. I know of multimillion dollar projects that spent years of work to suit the new sulphate emission limits, and now we find out that may have helped cause record sea surface temperatures. I want action on climate change but I don’t want the solution to cause more damage than the problem itself. Few misc responses: We may be beyond the carrying capacity of the earth in some ways, but most of these (eg soil health, fishing sustainability) is dominated by non-global warming anthro effects, so for those issues we should focus on those more direct causes. Take your claim that 90% of sharks are gone: closest evidence I can find is “90% of the world's open-ocean sharks died off in mystery extinction event 19 million years ago.” Recent shark population decrease is mainly because of demand for shark fin soup, with some effect due to CO2, but surely a tiny effect compared to commercial fishing. Ice melting faster: of course this is true, a warming world causes ice to melt. But the critical point is what are the effects of this and when? If Greenland is going to melt over 10,000 years then adaptation should be relatively easy. Melting in 50 years would be a different story. Will it be a local ecosystem collapse or just a redistribution as species adapt and fill new niches? Most of your claims are worst case scenarios from models with a lot of uncertainty and lack of predictive power. Circulation stopping? Droughts? These are likely to be worse with a warmer world, but how much more likely/worse? Some models predict an increase in farmland as the poles thaw. Some areas experience more rainfall due to increased evaporation. Consider the most reflexive climate action group: extinction rebellion. Their current goal is to stop UK oil and gas development. What would be the likely result of this? Historically when a multinational oil and gas corporation can’t develop in their preferred location they… develop in another location. The other locations are likely to be deep sea or 3rd world countries with less regulation. Both options result in worse environmental outcomes including worse emissions. This is why the ‘revolution’ options aren’t wise: there are basically no known paths to revolution which don’t involve mass conflict and the alternative, reform, is still possible. One point that did confuse me: why is global trade threatened?

myshpa 3y ago
> Take biofuel subsidies Yeah, yet another stupid "solution". https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-e... > sulphate emissions reductions You're right, the question is how big effect that had. I don't have the info. > 90% of sharks are gone https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts (sorry for the uppercase) FOR THE FIRST TIME SHARKS ARE GOING EXTINCT BECAUSE OF US SPECIES LIKE THRESHER, BULL AND HAMMERHEAD SHARKS HAVE LOST UP TO 80-99% OF THEIR POPULATIONS IN THE LAST TWO DECADES APPROX. 50 MILLION SHARKS ARE KILLED EVERY YEAR AS BYCATCH > Greenland is going to melt over 10,000 years then adaptation should be relatively easy. Melting in 50 years would be a different story https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/greenland-melted-recently-shows-high-risk-of-sea-level-rise-today/ https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/greenland-melted-recently-sh... Until recently, geologists believed that Greenland was a fortress of ice, mostly unmelted for millions of years Long-lost ice core reveals that much of Greenland was green 416,000 years ago It’s really the first bulletproof evidence that much of the Greenland ice sheet vanished when it got warm The CO2 levels during Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial were lower than today, but warming was still sufficient to generate major Greenland ice sheet melting. If we melt just portions of the Greenland ice sheet, the sea level rises dramatically, Four-hundred-thousand years ago there were no cities on the coast,” says Bierman, “and now there are cities on the coast." > Circulation stopping? Droughts? These are likely to be worse with a warmer world, but how much more likely/worse I can't answer that. Nobody probably can. Does it matter? > extinction rebellion ... worse environmental outcomes including worse emissions You're comparing extinction with worse emissions. I know almost nothing about extinction rebelion, but after this discussio I can understand their despair ;) > why is global trade threatened That's ChatGPT point ... probably disruptions in production etc. I don't have anything else to say. I'd talk about biodiversity loss etc., but I'll spare you. Thank you for the discussion.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Thank you too. I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed: the extinction rebellion people are not offering a policy that stops warming or stops existential threats from warming. They are choosing simplicity over efficacy. It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction, I oppose them _because_ their politics won’t result in reducing risk of extinction. What does it matter if the risk of droughts/circulation changes is low? Because if the risk is low, then there is a greater chance that an early intervention will cause more harm that it saves. I gave you a few examples of such policies. Acting from ignorance almost always results in bad policy. You may interpret this as me being “too slow” but I have shown that being “too fast” results in negative outcomes that makes the problem harder to solve.

myshpa 3y ago

> Take biofuel subsidies Yeah, yet another stupid "solution". https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-e... > sulphate emissions reductions You're right, the question is how big effect that had. I don't have the info. > 90% of sharks are gone https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts https://www.seaspiracy.org/facts (sorry for the uppercase) FOR THE FIRST TIME SHARKS ARE GOING EXTINCT BECAUSE OF US SPECIES LIKE THRESHER, BULL AND HAMMERHEAD SHARKS HAVE LOST UP TO 80-99% OF THEIR POPULATIONS IN THE LAST TWO DECADES APPROX. 50 MILLION SHARKS ARE KILLED EVERY YEAR AS BYCATCH > Greenland is going to melt over 10,000 years then adaptation should be relatively easy. Melting in 50 years would be a different story https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/greenland-melted-recently-shows-high-risk-of-sea-level-rise-today/ https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/greenland-melted-recently-sh... Until recently, geologists believed that Greenland was a fortress of ice, mostly unmelted for millions of years Long-lost ice core reveals that much of Greenland was green 416,000 years ago It’s really the first bulletproof evidence that much of the Greenland ice sheet vanished when it got warm The CO2 levels during Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial were lower than today, but warming was still sufficient to generate major Greenland ice sheet melting. If we melt just portions of the Greenland ice sheet, the sea level rises dramatically, Four-hundred-thousand years ago there were no cities on the coast,” says Bierman, “and now there are cities on the coast." > Circulation stopping? Droughts? These are likely to be worse with a warmer world, but how much more likely/worse I can't answer that. Nobody probably can. Does it matter? > extinction rebellion ... worse environmental outcomes including worse emissions You're comparing extinction with worse emissions. I know almost nothing about extinction rebelion, but after this discussio I can understand their despair ;) > why is global trade threatened That's ChatGPT point ... probably disruptions in production etc. I don't have anything else to say. I'd talk about biodiversity loss etc., but I'll spare you. Thank you for the discussion.

brutusborn 3y ago
Thank you too. I’ll correct a couple points I think you missed: the extinction rebellion people are not offering a policy that stops warming or stops existential threats from warming. They are choosing simplicity over efficacy. It’s absurd to say I am choosing extinction, I oppose them _because_ their politics won’t result in reducing risk of extinction. What does it matter if the risk of droughts/circulation changes is low? Because if the risk is low, then there is a greater chance that an early intervention will cause more harm that it saves. I gave you a few examples of such policies. Acting from ignorance almost always results in bad policy. You may interpret this as me being “too slow” but I have shown that being “too fast” results in negative outcomes that makes the problem harder to solve.