22 ms·

https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/2128446/during-wwii-industries-transitioned-from-peacetime-to-wartime-production/ https://www.defense

https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/2128446/during-wwii-industries-transitioned-from-peacetime-to-wartime-production/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/2... I think the Overton window needs to shift soon to include the idea that widespread government intervention will be required to avoid 800 million climate refugees

lm28469 3y ago
> will be required to avoid 800 million climate refugees "to handle" or "to mitigate" it's way to late for "to avoid"
- badcppdev 3y ago
  I would like to be an optimist and disagree with you but my optimism is being used with hoping that I don't end up stuck on the wrong side of the planet to my family when airlines have to start charging for the impact of the carbon released.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  I get a feeling it'll be "handled" in the same manner that it's "handled" in Cyberpunk 2077 if that's the scale that we're talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UamAMzVT4YA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UamAMzVT4YA
  - stevenwoo 3y ago
    The one plausible thing I found in Ministry for the Future was a country in a large scale heat crisis, India, putting a lot more pollution in the air to short term delay the warming trend over India.
zemvpferreira 3y ago
We do need to urgently discuss the role of the first world towards massive third world calamities. I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc. Meanwhile, poor countries will take the brunt of the disasters due to geography and lack of own resources. If the rich turn out richer and the poor poorer due to man-made global warming, I do believe we owe them help as a restitutive obligation.
- IKantRead 3y ago
  > I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies Well this is a fun new twist on climate denial. I have a hard time understanding how you can believe this when we've already seen incredible and costly damage in the US caused by climate change in just the last few years. Insurers are pulling out of Florida because they can't afford the increased risk and the entire insurance industry is at risk of catastrophic failure if extreme events keep getting more extreme [0]. > More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc. What? Climate change means less predictable weather, not more sunny days; I think people in Texas would have a hard time buying your argument for "less spent on heating"; less dependent on foreign resources is another way of say "reduced global trade" which has been and continues to be a major part of our economy. 0. https://www.wsj.com/finance/insurance-catastrophe-reinsurance-hurricane-77a69eab https://www.wsj.com/finance/insurance-catastrophe-reinsuranc...
  - ziddoap 3y ago
    The term "global warming" being seen as interchangeable with "climate change" has really been troublesome, and I think has led a lot of people to think surface warming is the entirety of what "climate change" is.
    - frob 3y ago
      The term "climate change" was literally created by conservative activist and Bush pollster Frank Luntz to confuse people about global warming and muddy the waters. From his Wikipedia article: > Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe global warming as climate change since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.
      - ziddoap 3y ago
        The scientific use of both terms has been around since the 80s, and is pretty well-settled, with climate change evolving from "inadvertent climate modification" which was the go-to term in the 70s. The memo you are referring to happened well over 20 years later. The term was not created by Frank Luntz. >In the 1980s, the terms global warming and climate change became more common. Though the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably,[24] scientifically, global warming refers only to increased surface warming, while climate change describes the totality of changes to Earth's climate system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://web.archive.org/web/20100809221926/http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100809221926/http://www.nasa.g...
micromacrofoot 3y ago
the US can barely manage to pass its annual budget, I'm not hopeful
- brookst 3y ago
  A large portion of the US populace wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies. Also not hopeful.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    What about the portion of the US populace that wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage because they think it's the best option they have? Is that not a valid viewpoint?
    - esarbe 3y ago
      I think it's an uneducated viewpoint that is supported by the deliberate misinformation of the oil and gas lobby. There are alternatives, there have always been alternatives. Better ones, cheaper ones.
      - oldpersonintx 3y ago
        [dead]
      - gottorf 3y ago
        I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit, and the latter of good people who just want the best for everybody. If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will assure their dominance. The oil and gas lobby is not so omnipotent that millions of people looking out for their own best interests, despite the imperfection of their knowledge, will stick to an obviously inferior means of achieving their goals. In other words, very few people will actually "maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies", as the GP said, if it hurts their pocketbooks to do so.
ramraj07 3y ago
I don’t believe it’s possible to avoid anything anymore, Merely the scale will be determined at best. It’s not just going to be 800 million refugees. I suspect it’s going to be actual deaths in that range. And with no real intervention as is the case now, likely in the billions. Given how the whole world handled the pandemic I have no confidence it’ll unfurl any other way. A sobering thought that keeps me awake for a bit every night.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  Looks like you were getting some down votes for talking about the almost worst case scenario. No rebuttals unfortunately
- m_fayer 3y ago
  I think some time in the next decade there will be a “perfect storm” heat wave combined with a power failure, and millions will die in days. This will jerk the Overton window and popular sentiment in an unpredictable direction, and no one knows what the world will look like on the other side of that.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    Yeah it might be wise to invest into some backup solar and an inverter to run off-grid in a pickle, after all max heat will also typically mean max solar output at the same time.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Where in the world would this event take place? In the hottest parts of the US the temperature gets to 46ºC regularly during the summer and people have lived there for hundreds of years. Do people die of heat stoke? Sure, at a rate of hundreds per year. Elsewhere in the world there are places where people love in the same heat with less means of cooking and less access to water. Millions of people may have to adapt. Fortunately, people are good at that.
    - ljf 3y ago
morkalork 3y ago
There will be widespread government intervention. The only question is what it's going to look like.
- Server6 3y ago
  Unfortunately the longer wait the most likely the response is going to be war.

lm28469 3y ago

> will be required to avoid 800 million climate refugees "to handle" or "to mitigate" it's way to late for "to avoid"

badcppdev 3y ago
I would like to be an optimist and disagree with you but my optimism is being used with hoping that I don't end up stuck on the wrong side of the planet to my family when airlines have to start charging for the impact of the carbon released.
Hamuko 3y ago
I get a feeling it'll be "handled" in the same manner that it's "handled" in Cyberpunk 2077 if that's the scale that we're talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UamAMzVT4YA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UamAMzVT4YA
- stevenwoo 3y ago
  The one plausible thing I found in Ministry for the Future was a country in a large scale heat crisis, India, putting a lot more pollution in the air to short term delay the warming trend over India.

zemvpferreira 3y ago

We do need to urgently discuss the role of the first world towards massive third world calamities. I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc. Meanwhile, poor countries will take the brunt of the disasters due to geography and lack of own resources. If the rich turn out richer and the poor poorer due to man-made global warming, I do believe we owe them help as a restitutive obligation.

IKantRead 3y ago
> I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies Well this is a fun new twist on climate denial. I have a hard time understanding how you can believe this when we've already seen incredible and costly damage in the US caused by climate change in just the last few years. Insurers are pulling out of Florida because they can't afford the increased risk and the entire insurance industry is at risk of catastrophic failure if extreme events keep getting more extreme [0]. > More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc. What? Climate change means less predictable weather, not more sunny days; I think people in Texas would have a hard time buying your argument for "less spent on heating"; less dependent on foreign resources is another way of say "reduced global trade" which has been and continues to be a major part of our economy. 0. https://www.wsj.com/finance/insurance-catastrophe-reinsurance-hurricane-77a69eab https://www.wsj.com/finance/insurance-catastrophe-reinsuranc...
- ziddoap 3y ago
  The term "global warming" being seen as interchangeable with "climate change" has really been troublesome, and I think has led a lot of people to think surface warming is the entirety of what "climate change" is.
  - frob 3y ago
    The term "climate change" was literally created by conservative activist and Bush pollster Frank Luntz to confuse people about global warming and muddy the waters. From his Wikipedia article: > Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe global warming as climate change since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.
    - ziddoap 3y ago
      The scientific use of both terms has been around since the 80s, and is pretty well-settled, with climate change evolving from "inadvertent climate modification" which was the go-to term in the 70s. The memo you are referring to happened well over 20 years later. The term was not created by Frank Luntz. >In the 1980s, the terms global warming and climate change became more common. Though the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably,[24] scientifically, global warming refers only to increased surface warming, while climate change describes the totality of changes to Earth's climate system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology https://web.archive.org/web/20100809221926/http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100809221926/http://www.nasa.g...

micromacrofoot 3y ago

the US can barely manage to pass its annual budget, I'm not hopeful

brookst 3y ago
A large portion of the US populace wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies. Also not hopeful.
- gottorf 3y ago
  What about the portion of the US populace that wants to maintain/increase fossil fuel usage because they think it's the best option they have? Is that not a valid viewpoint?
  - esarbe 3y ago
    I think it's an uneducated viewpoint that is supported by the deliberate misinformation of the oil and gas lobby. There are alternatives, there have always been alternatives. Better ones, cheaper ones.
    - oldpersonintx 3y ago
      [dead]
    - gottorf 3y ago
      I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit, and the latter of good people who just want the best for everybody. If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will assure their dominance. The oil and gas lobby is not so omnipotent that millions of people looking out for their own best interests, despite the imperfection of their knowledge, will stick to an obviously inferior means of achieving their goals. In other words, very few people will actually "maintain/increase fossil fuel usage just to stick it to their perceived enemies", as the GP said, if it hurts their pocketbooks to do so.

ramraj07 3y ago

I don’t believe it’s possible to avoid anything anymore, Merely the scale will be determined at best. It’s not just going to be 800 million refugees. I suspect it’s going to be actual deaths in that range. And with no real intervention as is the case now, likely in the billions. Given how the whole world handled the pandemic I have no confidence it’ll unfurl any other way. A sobering thought that keeps me awake for a bit every night.

badcppdev 3y ago
Looks like you were getting some down votes for talking about the almost worst case scenario. No rebuttals unfortunately
m_fayer 3y ago
I think some time in the next decade there will be a “perfect storm” heat wave combined with a power failure, and millions will die in days. This will jerk the Overton window and popular sentiment in an unpredictable direction, and no one knows what the world will look like on the other side of that.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Yeah it might be wise to invest into some backup solar and an inverter to run off-grid in a pickle, after all max heat will also typically mean max solar output at the same time.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Where in the world would this event take place? In the hottest parts of the US the temperature gets to 46ºC regularly during the summer and people have lived there for hundreds of years. Do people die of heat stoke? Sure, at a rate of hundreds per year. Elsewhere in the world there are places where people love in the same heat with less means of cooking and less access to water. Millions of people may have to adapt. Fortunately, people are good at that.
  - ljf 3y ago

morkalork 3y ago

There will be widespread government intervention. The only question is what it's going to look like.

Server6 3y ago
Unfortunately the longer wait the most likely the response is going to be war.