3 ms·

Well, the degree of "existential threat" depends on whether you're a rich industrialized country at mid-to-high latitudes or not. And even that is conditional o

Well, the degree of "existential threat" depends on whether you're a rich industrialized country at mid-to-high latitudes or not. And even that is conditional on the question of how many hundreds of millions of climate refugees there will be in the next 50 years, and what exactly can be done about them. A nontrivial fraction of Earth's land area, currently populated by a billion+ humans, will almost certainly become incompatible with such density. No matter how sedentary a part of humanity has become, people will not just sit down and die when conditions become unbearable; they will start walking. I'm reminded of Sagan's poignant words, even if spoken in a much more optimistic context: Even after 400 generations in villages and cities, we haven't forgotten. [...] has been meticulously crafted by natural selection as an essential element in our survival. Long summers, mild winters, rich harvests, plentiful game—none of them lasts forever. It is beyond our powers to predict the future. Catastrophic events have a way of sneaking up on us, of catching us unaware. The refugee issue is something that many people have either not thought about at all, or try their best not to think about to avoid cognitive dissonance, or think that it can be solved by building high enough walls and shooting anyone who tries to get through. Even without regard to the practicality of the latter solution, it is morally abhorrent enough to make it incompatible with any reasonable definition of a civilized society. Particularly because it's the rich industrialized societies that are directly responsible for the crisis in the first place!

photochemsyn 2y ago
China is currently directly involved in helping Africa leapfrog the fossil fuel technology that the industrialized West relied on for economic growth. You won't find much about this in the Western corporate media for fairly obvious reasons, but clearly the world can completely eliminate fossil fuel use within 50 years. My point is this trajectory still absolutely guarantees steady warming at around current rates 0.1 - 0.2 C per decade IIRC for the next several hundred years. All the tech fixes, aerosol injection etc., only mask the issue for a decade or two and are best classified as worthless scams. The only option is adaptation to new conditions, with replacement of fossil fuels with renewables and storage as priority #1. Of course fossil fuel producers and exporters like the United States, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. don't want to hear this, but that cash cow is going the way of whale oil and the kerosene lamp, and fast. There will be much howling and gnashing of teeth. As far as climate refugees, well maybe - but don't underestimate the capability of humans to adapt to new (degraded) conditions. I'd expect a steep decline in birthrate across much of the world as the pressure rises, however.
- Sharlin 2y ago
  The tremendous, astronomical injustice of the climate catastrophe is that specifically the societies that are the least responsible for it, and the least able to mitigate and adapt to it, are going to be the worst affected by its consequences.
  - photochemsyn 2y ago
    This is really not as definitive as you claim, although it is a popular talking point. Polar amplification of warming is well-understood, that's where the greatest temperature swings will take place, and that's going to impact Europe, North America, Japan, Russia, etc. heavily. Nobody is going to escape the consequences, it's planet-wide. Aug 2022 "The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979" https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3

photochemsyn 2y ago

China is currently directly involved in helping Africa leapfrog the fossil fuel technology that the industrialized West relied on for economic growth. You won't find much about this in the Western corporate media for fairly obvious reasons, but clearly the world can completely eliminate fossil fuel use within 50 years. My point is this trajectory still absolutely guarantees steady warming at around current rates 0.1 - 0.2 C per decade IIRC for the next several hundred years. All the tech fixes, aerosol injection etc., only mask the issue for a decade or two and are best classified as worthless scams. The only option is adaptation to new conditions, with replacement of fossil fuels with renewables and storage as priority #1. Of course fossil fuel producers and exporters like the United States, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. don't want to hear this, but that cash cow is going the way of whale oil and the kerosene lamp, and fast. There will be much howling and gnashing of teeth. As far as climate refugees, well maybe - but don't underestimate the capability of humans to adapt to new (degraded) conditions. I'd expect a steep decline in birthrate across much of the world as the pressure rises, however.

Sharlin 2y ago
The tremendous, astronomical injustice of the climate catastrophe is that specifically the societies that are the least responsible for it, and the least able to mitigate and adapt to it, are going to be the worst affected by its consequences.
- photochemsyn 2y ago
  This is really not as definitive as you claim, although it is a popular talking point. Polar amplification of warming is well-understood, that's where the greatest temperature swings will take place, and that's going to impact Europe, North America, Japan, Russia, etc. heavily. Nobody is going to escape the consequences, it's planet-wide. Aug 2022 "The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979" https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3