5 ms·

Warning: strong language and opinion I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuval

Warning: strong language and opinion I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu. You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways. We need as much pressure as possible for the three big climate-relevant conferences in 2015 (Paris et cetera), this will be the best chance we get for the next couple of years. If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. We all can be fucking glad if any of the upcoming changes turns out to be reversible. I'm afraid that few will be (keyword tipping points).

minikites 12y ago
I live in rural New York and I have mixed feelings about fracking for similar reasons. Why should we push environmental problems onto other people? We should be the ones to deal with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#Oil_spills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Nig... > A UNDP report states that there have been a total of 6,817 oil spills between 1976 and 2001, which account for a loss of three million barrels of oil, of which more than 70% was not recovered.
happyscrappy 12y ago
The sad truth is that the US will be fine. Few countries are as well positioned for rapid change as the US. Sorry.
nemothekid 12y ago
I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change, and not the fact that California really is a giant desert. If anything human intervention made California livable.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change, Literally no one has argued that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change. (The result of, OTOH...) > and not the fact that California really is a giant desert. The Central Valley is a giant desert, but California's water problems aren't because the Central Valley is a giant desert, its because the water received by the rest of California have been far below the historical norms for several years. Now, consuming lots of water -- e.g., by shipping lots of water from other places to the desert for agriculture -- makes California more sensitive to droughts than it otherwise would be, to be sure.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
I believe recent scientific studies have said the California drought is not caused by climate change. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-californias-epic-drought-probably-wasnt-caused-climate-change http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-cal...
- BashiBazouk 12y ago
  I believe the most recent theory is that the drought cycle is normal but the severity of the drought is influenced by climate change.
  - cowsandmilk 12y ago
    Yep. See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    "influenced" is such a weasel word. Everything influences everything a little bit.
ars 12y ago
The drought in California has nothing to do with climate change. > If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out If anything climate change will make more water not less. (Higher temperatures mean more evaporation.) The water would just be in a different location, not that there would be less of it.
- mitchty 12y ago
  Yep, the drought should be thought of more as a return to normalcy for California. We have been living under an incredibly wet period of California the past 100 or so years. We were wrong to think that was the norm. Climate change will impact things but climate change is not the cause of Californias problems. All this has happened before and all that jazz.
JimboOmega 12y ago
The sad truth is that the net outcome of this drought will probably hurt those in less developed countries more than Americans. Californians will not go thirsty or not be able to take showers; there's enough water for municipal supplies. Agriculture will, however, take a hit. While the valley produces a huge amount of produce, it is still a small part of the overall California economy. Prices will go up for vegetables which will need to be produced elsewhere. Americans won't really notice. SV will keep on humming. But in other places the prices for food will go up. Remember the 2007-8 food price crisis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_price_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pric... Most Americans don't.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  That is not a very satisfying answer for people hoping for America's demise.
Smegger 12y ago
exsept we have been cleaning up our act if you want yell at someone for killing the earth go yell at china.
puredemo 12y ago
Whatever dude. The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. >If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. No, water will simply become further commoditized, as Nestle is already doing today. And instead of the bottom Billion suffering it'll be the bottom 5 Billion. The US will still mostly be fine.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. Brazil's destruction of its rainforests to create land to raise beef for export actually has more to do with the US than you might think. I mean, why do you think that is a profitable (in the short run, anyway) thing to do?
  - puredemo 12y ago
    Fair point, but we're not the only country that enjoys beef, many 1st and 2nd world country import it. Blaming the issues on the US is myopic and wrong-headed. We aren't over-populated. We protect our national parks. We have a functioning democracy. Etc. Capitalistic demand can be short-sighted and there can be negative externalities, none of that should be surprising. It's up to people who OWN the land (their most valuable asset) to come up with ways to make it sustainably productive. Like you said, ranching on rainforest land only makes sense in the very short term.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Capitalistic demand can be short-sighted and there can be negative externalities, none of that should be surprising. It's up to people who OWN the land (their most valuable asset) to come up with ways to make it sustainably productive. But, as you note, there are negative externalities, which means that there is no incentive for the people that own the land to do so (because they are diffuse harms that also effect the landowners, there may be incentives for them to do so if it is in concert with mandatory restrictions on others taking actions that contribute to the same diffuse harms, but the nature of negative externalities is that the incentives to those involved in the transactions -- including those who own the land at issue -- are not sufficient for the optimal course of action, in terms of social utility, to be rational.)

minikites 12y ago

I live in rural New York and I have mixed feelings about fracking for similar reasons. Why should we push environmental problems onto other people? We should be the ones to deal with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#Oil_spills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Nig... > A UNDP report states that there have been a total of 6,817 oil spills between 1976 and 2001, which account for a loss of three million barrels of oil, of which more than 70% was not recovered.

happyscrappy 12y ago

The sad truth is that the US will be fine. Few countries are as well positioned for rapid change as the US. Sorry.

nemothekid 12y ago

I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change, and not the fact that California really is a giant desert. If anything human intervention made California livable.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change, Literally no one has argued that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change. (The result of, OTOH...) > and not the fact that California really is a giant desert. The Central Valley is a giant desert, but California's water problems aren't because the Central Valley is a giant desert, its because the water received by the rest of California have been far below the historical norms for several years. Now, consuming lots of water -- e.g., by shipping lots of water from other places to the desert for agriculture -- makes California more sensitive to droughts than it otherwise would be, to be sure.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

I believe recent scientific studies have said the California drought is not caused by climate change. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-californias-epic-drought-probably-wasnt-caused-climate-change http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-cal...

BashiBazouk 12y ago
I believe the most recent theory is that the drought cycle is normal but the severity of the drought is influenced by climate change.
- cowsandmilk 12y ago
  Yep. See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  "influenced" is such a weasel word. Everything influences everything a little bit.

ars 12y ago

The drought in California has nothing to do with climate change. > If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out If anything climate change will make more water not less. (Higher temperatures mean more evaporation.) The water would just be in a different location, not that there would be less of it.

mitchty 12y ago
Yep, the drought should be thought of more as a return to normalcy for California. We have been living under an incredibly wet period of California the past 100 or so years. We were wrong to think that was the norm. Climate change will impact things but climate change is not the cause of Californias problems. All this has happened before and all that jazz.

JimboOmega 12y ago

The sad truth is that the net outcome of this drought will probably hurt those in less developed countries more than Americans. Californians will not go thirsty or not be able to take showers; there's enough water for municipal supplies. Agriculture will, however, take a hit. While the valley produces a huge amount of produce, it is still a small part of the overall California economy. Prices will go up for vegetables which will need to be produced elsewhere. Americans won't really notice. SV will keep on humming. But in other places the prices for food will go up. Remember the 2007-8 food price crisis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_price_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pric... Most Americans don't.

happyscrappy 12y ago
That is not a very satisfying answer for people hoping for America's demise.

Smegger 12y ago

exsept we have been cleaning up our act if you want yell at someone for killing the earth go yell at china.

puredemo 12y ago

Whatever dude. The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. >If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. No, water will simply become further commoditized, as Nestle is already doing today. And instead of the bottom Billion suffering it'll be the bottom 5 Billion. The US will still mostly be fine.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. Brazil's destruction of its rainforests to create land to raise beef for export actually has more to do with the US than you might think. I mean, why do you think that is a profitable (in the short run, anyway) thing to do?
- puredemo 12y ago
  Fair point, but we're not the only country that enjoys beef, many 1st and 2nd world country import it. Blaming the issues on the US is myopic and wrong-headed. We aren't over-populated. We protect our national parks. We have a functioning democracy. Etc. Capitalistic demand can be short-sighted and there can be negative externalities, none of that should be surprising. It's up to people who OWN the land (their most valuable asset) to come up with ways to make it sustainably productive. Like you said, ranching on rainforest land only makes sense in the very short term.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Capitalistic demand can be short-sighted and there can be negative externalities, none of that should be surprising. It's up to people who OWN the land (their most valuable asset) to come up with ways to make it sustainably productive. But, as you note, there are negative externalities, which means that there is no incentive for the people that own the land to do so (because they are diffuse harms that also effect the landowners, there may be incentives for them to do so if it is in concert with mandatory restrictions on others taking actions that contribute to the same diffuse harms, but the nature of negative externalities is that the incentives to those involved in the transactions -- including those who own the land at issue -- are not sufficient for the optimal course of action, in terms of social utility, to be rational.)