4 ms·

The scientific litterature and IPCC’s summaries warned about these phenomenon. When 2 billion people will be living under wet bulb temperature that can’t be ta

by tvbv 3y ago

The scientific litterature and IPCC’s summaries warned about these phenomenon. When 2 billion people will be living under wet bulb temperature that can’t be tanked by the body it’s going to be a mess worldwide.

hackerlight 3y ago
People who live in the humid tropics are already on a knife's edge. A small increase makes the heat intolerable and you will see either mass death or mass waves of immigration. "Just build aircon" doesn't work when you're talking about people with intermittent (or no) electricity and who have an annual income equal to a single aircon unit.
- beAbU 3y ago
  Smol nit: immigration means moving into a country. In your example we'll see a lot of emigration, people moving out of the country. You emigrate from one country and thereafter you immigrate into another. Mnemonic: IN=IMmigrate, EXIT=Emigrate
  - spyke112 3y ago
    Even smaller nit: Isn't it basically two sides of the same coin in this context? I'm not sure what the intent was in the previous post, but it could just as well be from the perspective of someone living in a desirable country worried about a lot of immigration of less fortunate people.
    - beAbU 3y ago
      My interpretation was that countries with growing cimate problems will start seeing more and more immigration, which is wrong. It'll see more and more emigration.
- tvbv 3y ago
  Exactly.
- thworp 3y ago
  All the more reason to urgently develop the world to at least the level of Malaysia / Thailand (or ~Western Europe ca. 1950). If we quit fossil fuels cold turkey it is those very same people in the tropics that will starve. But making that connection requires thinking about second order effects, a tall order for the degrowth cult.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    I want to continue growing, just replace fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear in all developed countries, and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves. There isn't this false dichotomy of degrowth vs growth. We can grow our economy without growing emissions. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humidity-emerging/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humi... The medium-term problem for these hot countries is that extreme heat negatively impacts education and economic productivity. Whenever there's a heatwave (which will become more frequent) they have to keep their kids home. Worker producitivity is negatively impacted. It's terrible for their economic development. The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels instead of simply building renewables does nothing help the average person in Sri Lanka living under 30+ degree heat. It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault. The long-term problem for these hot countries is that wet bulb temperatures will make it literally uninhabitable unless you have electricity and aircon, which many don't. This is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. If we keep emitting, temperatures will keep rising, until the point that this becomes true. It is causality. I want conservatives to think about this latter point because the consequences are mass immigration to colder countries, primarily the US and in Europe. Then the side-effect of that will probably be a rise in authoritarianism in these colder countries as a reaction to the mass immigration. None of this benefits anyone.
    - thworp 3y ago
      Thank you for the response and sorry if my comment was excessively snarky. I think we share the same concerns and have the same goals and even mostly agree on practical steps to get there. I've just seen and heard too many degrowth advocates (that really want to return to 19th century economy with 21st century populations) recently and it's really worrying me. > and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves. Yes! With a fraction of the money sloshing around various "charities" and NGOs, mostly spent on salaries, you could build solar with storage for millions of people. Of course in practice it would be really complicated, you have to make sure the right people run the systems and there will be bad cases of corruption. But it really is the least we could do. > The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers. Ever since solar became the cheapest form of generation both have seen an incredible boom in solar, with almost no policy incentives. This is a huge win for the planet, if people want to build solar because the incentives align they will just do it without costing larger society any (political) capital. > It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault. I follow the logic and agree about the causality chain, but this is a road it's best not to go down. It quickly turns into personally blaming people for things they had no control over. That has never been a good way to persuade people. Imo it's also a lazy deflection, since humanity has never really paid any attention to its resource usage. The only difference is that Industrial societies gained the capability to affect the planet on such a large scale.

by tvbv 3y ago

hackerlight 3y ago

People who live in the humid tropics are already on a knife's edge. A small increase makes the heat intolerable and you will see either mass death or mass waves of immigration. "Just build aircon" doesn't work when you're talking about people with intermittent (or no) electricity and who have an annual income equal to a single aircon unit.

beAbU 3y ago
Smol nit: immigration means moving into a country. In your example we'll see a lot of emigration, people moving out of the country. You emigrate from one country and thereafter you immigrate into another. Mnemonic: IN=IMmigrate, EXIT=Emigrate
- spyke112 3y ago
  Even smaller nit: Isn't it basically two sides of the same coin in this context? I'm not sure what the intent was in the previous post, but it could just as well be from the perspective of someone living in a desirable country worried about a lot of immigration of less fortunate people.
  - beAbU 3y ago
    My interpretation was that countries with growing cimate problems will start seeing more and more immigration, which is wrong. It'll see more and more emigration.
tvbv 3y ago
Exactly.
thworp 3y ago
All the more reason to urgently develop the world to at least the level of Malaysia / Thailand (or ~Western Europe ca. 1950). If we quit fossil fuels cold turkey it is those very same people in the tropics that will starve. But making that connection requires thinking about second order effects, a tall order for the degrowth cult.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  I want to continue growing, just replace fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear in all developed countries, and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves. There isn't this false dichotomy of degrowth vs growth. We can grow our economy without growing emissions. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humidity-emerging/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humi... The medium-term problem for these hot countries is that extreme heat negatively impacts education and economic productivity. Whenever there's a heatwave (which will become more frequent) they have to keep their kids home. Worker producitivity is negatively impacted. It's terrible for their economic development. The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels instead of simply building renewables does nothing help the average person in Sri Lanka living under 30+ degree heat. It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault. The long-term problem for these hot countries is that wet bulb temperatures will make it literally uninhabitable unless you have electricity and aircon, which many don't. This is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. If we keep emitting, temperatures will keep rising, until the point that this becomes true. It is causality. I want conservatives to think about this latter point because the consequences are mass immigration to colder countries, primarily the US and in Europe. Then the side-effect of that will probably be a rise in authoritarianism in these colder countries as a reaction to the mass immigration. None of this benefits anyone.
  - thworp 3y ago
    Thank you for the response and sorry if my comment was excessively snarky. I think we share the same concerns and have the same goals and even mostly agree on practical steps to get there. I've just seen and heard too many degrowth advocates (that really want to return to 19th century economy with 21st century populations) recently and it's really worrying me. > and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves. Yes! With a fraction of the money sloshing around various "charities" and NGOs, mostly spent on salaries, you could build solar with storage for millions of people. Of course in practice it would be really complicated, you have to make sure the right people run the systems and there will be bad cases of corruption. But it really is the least we could do. > The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers. Ever since solar became the cheapest form of generation both have seen an incredible boom in solar, with almost no policy incentives. This is a huge win for the planet, if people want to build solar because the incentives align they will just do it without costing larger society any (political) capital. > It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault. I follow the logic and agree about the causality chain, but this is a road it's best not to go down. It quickly turns into personally blaming people for things they had no control over. That has never been a good way to persuade people. Imo it's also a lazy deflection, since humanity has never really paid any attention to its resource usage. The only difference is that Industrial societies gained the capability to affect the planet on such a large scale.