3 ms·

That link to famines only goes up to 2016 which is missing out the famines in Yemen, South Sudan, Unity State, Somalia, Nigeria, Tigray, Madagascar and arguably

That link to famines only goes up to 2016 which is missing out the famines in Yemen, South Sudan, Unity State, Somalia, Nigeria, Tigray, Madagascar and arguably Gaza Strip and Palestine. I would disagree that we've gotten really good at organising food - we've gotten good at organising food for wealthy countries, but have done very little for poorer people - they usually just starve when crops fail. I think you're treating climate change as a single event that can be dealt with, but the truth is closer to a fast changing series of events that will overwhelm governments as they'll still be reacting to the first catastrophe when the next one comes and then the next one and so on. Despite your optimism, this is exactly the kind of thing that destroys civilisations. It's like an insurance company hedging money against a once-in-a-hundred years event, but when those events happen every couple of years, the company will find itself bankrupt. I have doubts about how easy it is to build an extensive shelter with air conditioning in areas that don't even have an electricity supply. Why would we suddenly start to care about those poorer regions when we don't currently? It's far more realistic that the richer countries will make token statements and then just leave people to die, which will inevitably involve people moving from the uninhabitable areas into places that can support human life without continual money and investment. You seem to be judging the climate crisis with previous events, when the big problem is that we're seeing unprecedented weather events - it's not going to be like anything that we've encountered previously.

roenxi 3y ago
> I have doubts about how easy it is to build an extensive shelter with air conditioning in areas that don't even have an electricity supply. Picking on this as the best example of the thinking; the problem here is that people are living in terrible conditions. The urgency of the situation ... almost doesn't change if they are about to be hit by a new crisis in 20 years. It is urgent, right now, to set up an electrical plant, grid and other infrastructure. Conditions are already bad enough that they should mass-migrate. I agree the west is probably going to leave Africa to their own devices; but the Africans have agency too. They should copy the successful parts of what China did as a matter of life-and-death urgency. > I think you're treating climate change as a single event that can be dealt with, but the truth is closer to a fast changing series of events that will overwhelm governments as they'll still be reacting to the first catastrophe when the next one comes and then the next one and so on. Governments don't provide food, build shelter or keep people cool in summer (well, I suppose public housing is an exception but it isn't the norm). Them being overwhelmed doesn't have that much bearing on the important stuff. > It's like an insurance company hedging money against a once-in-a-hundred years event, but when those events happen every couple of years, the company will find itself bankrupt. That seems unlikely, actually. They'd adjust their coverage and premiums to remain profitable. Insurance companies hire some of the best actuaries and forecasters. Your positing that they're going to be caught completely by surprise from things that are common knowledge problems - always possible I suppose, but not really the baseline expectation. > when the big problem is that we're seeing unprecedented weather events - it's not going to be like anything that we've encountered previously Yes and no. They will be unprecedented, but we're not talking magnitudes that are that outside the human experience. The pitch I'm seeing seems to be there will be week-long (maybe month-long in some areas) periods where humans can't survive without shelter. Some of the most prosperous regions of the earth already have that problem. And you've convinced me that people currently so poor as to be at risk of famine are probably going to be hit by famines; but not that anyone else is. So it seems quite likely that the status quo will be preserved. And the solution is for the poorer countries to build up their industry, not for anyone else to shrink theirs.

roenxi 3y ago

> I have doubts about how easy it is to build an extensive shelter with air conditioning in areas that don't even have an electricity supply. Picking on this as the best example of the thinking; the problem here is that people are living in terrible conditions. The urgency of the situation ... almost doesn't change if they are about to be hit by a new crisis in 20 years. It is urgent, right now, to set up an electrical plant, grid and other infrastructure. Conditions are already bad enough that they should mass-migrate. I agree the west is probably going to leave Africa to their own devices; but the Africans have agency too. They should copy the successful parts of what China did as a matter of life-and-death urgency. > I think you're treating climate change as a single event that can be dealt with, but the truth is closer to a fast changing series of events that will overwhelm governments as they'll still be reacting to the first catastrophe when the next one comes and then the next one and so on. Governments don't provide food, build shelter or keep people cool in summer (well, I suppose public housing is an exception but it isn't the norm). Them being overwhelmed doesn't have that much bearing on the important stuff. > It's like an insurance company hedging money against a once-in-a-hundred years event, but when those events happen every couple of years, the company will find itself bankrupt. That seems unlikely, actually. They'd adjust their coverage and premiums to remain profitable. Insurance companies hire some of the best actuaries and forecasters. Your positing that they're going to be caught completely by surprise from things that are common knowledge problems - always possible I suppose, but not really the baseline expectation. > when the big problem is that we're seeing unprecedented weather events - it's not going to be like anything that we've encountered previously Yes and no. They will be unprecedented, but we're not talking magnitudes that are that outside the human experience. The pitch I'm seeing seems to be there will be week-long (maybe month-long in some areas) periods where humans can't survive without shelter. Some of the most prosperous regions of the earth already have that problem. And you've convinced me that people currently so poor as to be at risk of famine are probably going to be hit by famines; but not that anyone else is. So it seems quite likely that the status quo will be preserved. And the solution is for the poorer countries to build up their industry, not for anyone else to shrink theirs.