5 ms·

Do these studies consider collapsing supply chains and unequal global fossil resource distribution necessary for food security beyond arable land? Because moder

Do these studies consider collapsing supply chains and unequal global fossil resource distribution necessary for food security beyond arable land? Because modern agriculture sure won't do without phosphorus supply from Morocco. Is the local fauna and flora diverse and robust enough to adapt to rapidly changing ecosystems? Can those "net winners" build their MRI machines, when lethal wet bulb temperatures close rare earth mines in China? Will they have the means to defend their prosperous islands against billions of refugees and enemy soldiers at their borders? Do reactionary authoritarian governments qualify for "net winning" societies? I presume "net winning" suggests something very misleading here. It certainly won't mean a net gain over the status quo in wealth and welfare.

maxglute 3y ago
Not "woke" climate change only studies designed to propagandize / mitigate climate change. But read enough disparate industry analysis and you can connect the dots. i.e. up here in Canada, we'll gain arable land with receding tundra, we have large reserve of every mineral you can imagine. Shit hits the fan, supply chains get disrupted, we will tear up indigenous ecosystems to process rare earth and play to our geoeconomic strengths while poor global south chokes from web bulb. We'll burn extremely poluting tar sands oil / discover more coal veins to gasify into fertilzer. We'll gain transit dues when North West Passage becomes reliably passable. Geographically isolated, we'll have large oceans and militant US to drown/shoot climate refugees. On balance, we have potential do significantly better when everyone else does worse. That's not pleasant, that's not what anyone respectable would write about, but when things get bad, that will be reality. Some winners can win big, or at least much more than they (and others) lose. And I'll be walking around winter in shorts, angry that I spent 100s on a nice winter jacket and feel bad for rest of world. Like that's not going to be the narrative being sold. But as soon as the economic benefits come, people who benefit will shrug, and maybe do performative protest. But in the back of their minds, they'll appreciate their good fortunes.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  Lol. Fair enough!
- hgomersall 3y ago
  Will that disparate industry analysis have a good mitigation for an ICBM?

maxglute 3y ago

Not "woke" climate change only studies designed to propagandize / mitigate climate change. But read enough disparate industry analysis and you can connect the dots. i.e. up here in Canada, we'll gain arable land with receding tundra, we have large reserve of every mineral you can imagine. Shit hits the fan, supply chains get disrupted, we will tear up indigenous ecosystems to process rare earth and play to our geoeconomic strengths while poor global south chokes from web bulb. We'll burn extremely poluting tar sands oil / discover more coal veins to gasify into fertilzer. We'll gain transit dues when North West Passage becomes reliably passable. Geographically isolated, we'll have large oceans and militant US to drown/shoot climate refugees. On balance, we have potential do significantly better when everyone else does worse. That's not pleasant, that's not what anyone respectable would write about, but when things get bad, that will be reality. Some winners can win big, or at least much more than they (and others) lose. And I'll be walking around winter in shorts, angry that I spent 100s on a nice winter jacket and feel bad for rest of world. Like that's not going to be the narrative being sold. But as soon as the economic benefits come, people who benefit will shrug, and maybe do performative protest. But in the back of their minds, they'll appreciate their good fortunes.

jijijijij 3y ago
Lol. Fair enough!
hgomersall 3y ago
Will that disparate industry analysis have a good mitigation for an ICBM?