3 ms·

Yes but preventing what we can of it at this stage (which isn't much) will cost as much as a world war and will have huge impact on people's lives. So will clim

Yes but preventing what we can of it at this stage (which isn't much) will cost as much as a world war and will have huge impact on people's lives. So will climate change but not as equally distributed. Many areas will be fine and some will even improve (eg Siberia and Northern Canada might become a lot more habitable. The Soviets even had a plan to screw up the gulf stream by damming up the Bering Strait for this purpose. I just don't see it happen. Most countries are democracies and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. It's not fair and I don't agree with it but it's realistic. Add to that the 20 year delay in CO2 emissions and effect and most of it is already locked in.

shkkmo 2y ago
> Yes but preventing what we can of it at this stage (which isn't much) will cost as much as a world war and will have huge impact on people's lives. You seem to have gathered the wrong impression here. Yes, a certain amount of global warming is pretty much locked in, and that levels is high enough that it's gonna cause some pretty big problems. That doesn't mean that continuing to emmit CO2 at current levels for the next several decades won't make things significantly worse. > Many areas will be fine and some will even improve (eg Siberia and Northern Canada might become a lot more habitable. This also isn't true. While there are areas that will grow more temperate for growing crops, that doesn't mean those areas will be fine (or have good soil to do so). Sure Alaska might be able to grow more giant vegetables, but could lose a significant part or all of their fisheries and will face more problems with wildfires that it does today. Permafrost melting will destroy infrastructure. These northern ecosystems tend to be pretty fragile and warmer temperatures could cause significant ecological collapse. There are areas where the impacts will be greater and lesser. There aren't significant areas that will be better off due to climate change.

shkkmo 2y ago

> Yes but preventing what we can of it at this stage (which isn't much) will cost as much as a world war and will have huge impact on people's lives. You seem to have gathered the wrong impression here. Yes, a certain amount of global warming is pretty much locked in, and that levels is high enough that it's gonna cause some pretty big problems. That doesn't mean that continuing to emmit CO2 at current levels for the next several decades won't make things significantly worse. > Many areas will be fine and some will even improve (eg Siberia and Northern Canada might become a lot more habitable. This also isn't true. While there are areas that will grow more temperate for growing crops, that doesn't mean those areas will be fine (or have good soil to do so). Sure Alaska might be able to grow more giant vegetables, but could lose a significant part or all of their fisheries and will face more problems with wildfires that it does today. Permafrost melting will destroy infrastructure. These northern ecosystems tend to be pretty fragile and warmer temperatures could cause significant ecological collapse. There are areas where the impacts will be greater and lesser. There aren't significant areas that will be better off due to climate change.