4 ms·

Nothing says "your assumptions might be too simplistic" more than using espressions such as "[Country X] would do whatever it takes to prevent 2° of climate war

Nothing says "your assumptions might be too simplistic" more than using espressions such as "[Country X] would do whatever it takes to prevent 2° of climate warming". What is [Country X] currently doing about it, then? I'd assume Country X is currently banning/disincentivizing cars, cement, AI clusters, plane travel, and all kinds of much easier measures than literal nuclear attacks on other nuclear-equipped countries. The world is complex. There are very few (maybe zero?) cases where any given nation state is willing to do "whatever it takes" to do anything.

ben_w 2y ago
> What is [Country X] currently doing about it, then? > What is [Country X] currently doing about it, then? I'd assume Country X is currently banning/disincentivizing cars, cement, AI clusters, plane travel, and all kinds of much easier measures than literal nuclear attacks on other nuclear-equipped countries. Country X in this case being India, here's what they're currently up to: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/climate-policy-india/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/climate-policy-india/ I was wondering if I'd emphasised strongly enough "in the scenario where AMOC has collapsed and Europe tries to resolve this by overcoming it with extra greenhouse gas emissions". This scenario is trying to correct a local 2°C reduction with enough extra greenhouse gas for a global 2°C *more than today*. Current temperatures are about 1.25°C over the pre-industrial average, so that brings us to a minimum lower bound of 3.25°C over the pre-industrial average. This is in the region of "about half the world population experiences deadly humid heatwaves every year, the Himalayan glaciers stop supplying fresh water to half of the Indian population, marine ecosystems collapse, nearly all crops are negatively affected and yields fall rapidly, 18% loss of global GDP": https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/#:~:text=At%203.5°C%2C%20the,C%20hotter%20than%20surrounding%20waters https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5.... We're not currently on a course for that in the first place, the current policies reach 2.6°C relative to the pre-industrial average (1.35°C relative to today) by 2100, so what India (and everyone else) has to do to prevent that is… basically what everyone is already currently doing. Though we can do better, and we should, because 2.6°C over pre-industrial (1.35°C over today) is still pretty bad. But if it came to that scenario? That hypothetical where the European continent (including the UK) gives the world a two fingered salute? The negative consequences of being on the receiving end of the UK and France nuclear arsenals, would still be less bad for India and its people even if they acted unilaterally than allowing the extra impact of that much additional greenhouse gasses. Never mind that all those problems with an additional 2°C beyond current would cause to everyone else which means that the USA won't be on Europe's side if Europe was hubristic enough to try to solve this with geo-engineering rather than something less drastic. And I did also only say that as a follow-on if "Not selling them stuff to burn" was shown to be insufficient. There are of course many stops between "don't sell them stuff" and "nuke them", I didn't feel it was a good use of time to enumerate them.

ben_w 2y ago

> What is [Country X] currently doing about it, then? > What is [Country X] currently doing about it, then? I'd assume Country X is currently banning/disincentivizing cars, cement, AI clusters, plane travel, and all kinds of much easier measures than literal nuclear attacks on other nuclear-equipped countries. Country X in this case being India, here's what they're currently up to: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/climate-policy-india/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/climate-policy-india/ I was wondering if I'd emphasised strongly enough "in the scenario where AMOC has collapsed and Europe tries to resolve this by overcoming it with extra greenhouse gas emissions". This scenario is trying to correct a local 2°C reduction with enough extra greenhouse gas for a global 2°C *more than today*. Current temperatures are about 1.25°C over the pre-industrial average, so that brings us to a minimum lower bound of 3.25°C over the pre-industrial average. This is in the region of "about half the world population experiences deadly humid heatwaves every year, the Himalayan glaciers stop supplying fresh water to half of the Indian population, marine ecosystems collapse, nearly all crops are negatively affected and yields fall rapidly, 18% loss of global GDP": https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5c-2c-3c-and-4c/#:~:text=At%203.5°C%2C%20the,C%20hotter%20than%20surrounding%20waters https://unclimatesummit.org/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1-5.... We're not currently on a course for that in the first place, the current policies reach 2.6°C relative to the pre-industrial average (1.35°C relative to today) by 2100, so what India (and everyone else) has to do to prevent that is… basically what everyone is already currently doing. Though we can do better, and we should, because 2.6°C over pre-industrial (1.35°C over today) is still pretty bad. But if it came to that scenario? That hypothetical where the European continent (including the UK) gives the world a two fingered salute? The negative consequences of being on the receiving end of the UK and France nuclear arsenals, would still be less bad for India and its people even if they acted unilaterally than allowing the extra impact of that much additional greenhouse gasses. Never mind that all those problems with an additional 2°C beyond current would cause to everyone else which means that the USA won't be on Europe's side if Europe was hubristic enough to try to solve this with geo-engineering rather than something less drastic. And I did also only say that as a follow-on if "Not selling them stuff to burn" was shown to be insufficient. There are of course many stops between "don't sell them stuff" and "nuke them", I didn't feel it was a good use of time to enumerate them.