4 ms·

This rhymes with https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tough-truths-about-climate https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tough-truths-about-climate.

epistasis 1y ago
I see very little agreement in any way with Bill Gates is talking about. In fact I suspect that Gates would be dismissed as too woke for making this one of his main points: > But we can’t cut funding for health and development—programs that help people stay resilient in the face of climate change—to do it. > It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies, which includes reducing the Green Premium to zero and improving agriculture and health in poor countries. This is just rehashed Green New Deal language for the global stage. (Something I fully support!!)
- delichon 1y ago
  They're agreeing that climate change is serious but not necessarily civilization ending: Nordhous: "The amount of warming that is conceivable … is not remotely consistent with the sorts of catastrophic outcomes … where tens or hundreds of million, perhaps even billions of lives were at stake." Gates: "Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise."
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    that's what "climate skeptics" have been saying for twenty years but you would get bullied for saying so. my favorite was getting told we "deserved it" for being in Texas during the ice apocalypse, because Texas is a red state. I hope that people exhibiting that kind of behavior are finally starting to question whether or not it's helpful. The article suggests that is perhaps beginning to happen. If you want people to make sacrifices to improve the future, just maybe messaging that it's hopeless and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid isn't the best strategy for effecting real change
    - hobofan 1y ago
      > particularly for people in the poorest countries > for being in Texas News flash: climate change by and large isn't about the US, and US will be one of the least impacted nations of first hand climate change effects.
      - Lord-Jobo 1y ago
        Not who you are replying to, but two of the most populated U.S states will massively depopulate with much more climate change. Texas and Florida are turning into complete furnaces for 1/3 of the year and subject to catastrophic severe weather another 1/3. Which is a small deal compared to a billion foreign migrants, which is also a possibility, but still a massive deal. You are completely correct that the first world will escape most of the direct and dire pain resulting from our irresponsible burning of the future. I also think trying to suss out “who is going to suffer more” is basically pointless when so much of our economy is based worldwide trade and so much of our society is expecting relatively stable populations, two things that will change rapidly with a few climate shifts. *this entire thread is getting at one thing: yes, humanity and the general summary of human knowledge will almost certainly survive the extreme chaos we are heading for. That should not be much consolation to you, because the chaos will set back the human experience 150 years for generations that include you and your children. Especially when the chaos involves incredible strife for many nations with nuclear armament.
    - RickJWagner 1y ago
      You’re right, and you’re being downvoted for being so. The bullying and name calling were intolerable. Even suggesting that the earths demise was not immediate would label you a denier and ignorant about the undeniable science behind the alarms. It seems the tide is turning and some of the leading voices in the earth-is-cooking camp are now walking things back. Don’t wait for an apology, though.
      - epistasis 1y ago
        You folks should stop hanging around such awful, nasty people. Or, maybe you're not remembering very well what actually happened in these conversations, but it would be shame to break apart a self-pity party.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics. Also occasionally from those that are poorly informed, but they also tend to believe things like GMOs being the end of agriculture, and have basically zero impact on society due to lack of influence and small number of people. Nordhous' extreme situations may have been possible back in the 1990s with zero action and without the advent of solar, wind, and storage that have been created since then, but his statements are kind of wacky. We've known for almost a decade now that the RCP8.5 scenarios are no longer on the table, and even that worst case scenario wasn't civilization ending. I read Bill Gates' note as not an evolution on his view at all, it seems 100% consistent with everything he has worked for, but rather trying to place climate change in a more humanity-focused context for evaluating tradeoffs of where to put money. That's very important for governments and for wealthy philanthropists like him, and for the COP 3 audience he's talking to.
    - readthenotes1 1y ago
      "I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics. " And yet, sentence from current top comment: " We're in a mass extinction."
      - epistasis 1y ago
        We are in a mass extinction. It is not civilization ending. Can you explain why you think these contradict each other?
      - hobofan 1y ago
        I hope you realize that there are more species on earth than just humans.
        readthenotes1 1y ago
        Of course, but why would it matter unless it affects human civilization? There have been extinctions for the history of the world...

epistasis 1y ago

I see very little agreement in any way with Bill Gates is talking about. In fact I suspect that Gates would be dismissed as too woke for making this one of his main points: > But we can’t cut funding for health and development—programs that help people stay resilient in the face of climate change—to do it. > It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies, which includes reducing the Green Premium to zero and improving agriculture and health in poor countries. This is just rehashed Green New Deal language for the global stage. (Something I fully support!!)

delichon 1y ago
They're agreeing that climate change is serious but not necessarily civilization ending: Nordhous: "The amount of warming that is conceivable … is not remotely consistent with the sorts of catastrophic outcomes … where tens or hundreds of million, perhaps even billions of lives were at stake." Gates: "Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise."
- dingnuts 1y ago
  that's what "climate skeptics" have been saying for twenty years but you would get bullied for saying so. my favorite was getting told we "deserved it" for being in Texas during the ice apocalypse, because Texas is a red state. I hope that people exhibiting that kind of behavior are finally starting to question whether or not it's helpful. The article suggests that is perhaps beginning to happen. If you want people to make sacrifices to improve the future, just maybe messaging that it's hopeless and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid isn't the best strategy for effecting real change
  - hobofan 1y ago
    > particularly for people in the poorest countries > for being in Texas News flash: climate change by and large isn't about the US, and US will be one of the least impacted nations of first hand climate change effects.
    - Lord-Jobo 1y ago
      Not who you are replying to, but two of the most populated U.S states will massively depopulate with much more climate change. Texas and Florida are turning into complete furnaces for 1/3 of the year and subject to catastrophic severe weather another 1/3. Which is a small deal compared to a billion foreign migrants, which is also a possibility, but still a massive deal. You are completely correct that the first world will escape most of the direct and dire pain resulting from our irresponsible burning of the future. I also think trying to suss out “who is going to suffer more” is basically pointless when so much of our economy is based worldwide trade and so much of our society is expecting relatively stable populations, two things that will change rapidly with a few climate shifts. *this entire thread is getting at one thing: yes, humanity and the general summary of human knowledge will almost certainly survive the extreme chaos we are heading for. That should not be much consolation to you, because the chaos will set back the human experience 150 years for generations that include you and your children. Especially when the chaos involves incredible strife for many nations with nuclear armament.
  - RickJWagner 1y ago
    You’re right, and you’re being downvoted for being so. The bullying and name calling were intolerable. Even suggesting that the earths demise was not immediate would label you a denier and ignorant about the undeniable science behind the alarms. It seems the tide is turning and some of the leading voices in the earth-is-cooking camp are now walking things back. Don’t wait for an apology, though.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      You folks should stop hanging around such awful, nasty people. Or, maybe you're not remembering very well what actually happened in these conversations, but it would be shame to break apart a self-pity party.
- epistasis 1y ago
  I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics. Also occasionally from those that are poorly informed, but they also tend to believe things like GMOs being the end of agriculture, and have basically zero impact on society due to lack of influence and small number of people. Nordhous' extreme situations may have been possible back in the 1990s with zero action and without the advent of solar, wind, and storage that have been created since then, but his statements are kind of wacky. We've known for almost a decade now that the RCP8.5 scenarios are no longer on the table, and even that worst case scenario wasn't civilization ending. I read Bill Gates' note as not an evolution on his view at all, it seems 100% consistent with everything he has worked for, but rather trying to place climate change in a more humanity-focused context for evaluating tradeoffs of where to put money. That's very important for governments and for wealthy philanthropists like him, and for the COP 3 audience he's talking to.
  - readthenotes1 1y ago
    "I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics. " And yet, sentence from current top comment: " We're in a mass extinction."
    - epistasis 1y ago
      We are in a mass extinction. It is not civilization ending. Can you explain why you think these contradict each other?
    - hobofan 1y ago
      I hope you realize that there are more species on earth than just humans.
      - readthenotes1 1y ago
        Of course, but why would it matter unless it affects human civilization? There have been extinctions for the history of the world...