Planning for climate change - which communities will do the best
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
I don't disagree that they all need to be considered and planned for. I don't disagree that China and India (as well as some emerging markets in Southeast Asia and Africa) are the biggest blockers to what needs to be done. The only thing that I'm saying is that, the Science and Mathematics only points to ONE THING which needs to be done and is realistically doable given the considerations for economics and governments. Adapting to a world in which we (humanity) ignore the problem will be much, much, much more burdensome and costly to all societies' economies and all governments than what they're currently being asked.
The real problem is expressing that reality to countries like China and India and have them get with the program. In the end, I don't see any solution presented which will allow humanity to continue for more than a few generations given a disregard (in word or deed) for what our Science says is coming. There hasn't been a presentation of any technology that's economically and scientifically feasible to keep going how we're going and avoid the inevitable results of Climate Change. There has been a framework presented to alter how we're operating (especially in regards to energy generation, transmission, and use) to do so.
In the end, neither effort (Combating Climate Change, or Living with Climate Change) may be feasible given the economic and governmental implications. Countries might be unwilling to cooperate with one effort and the other effort is likely to lead to inevitable global conflicts that will eradicate a large portion of the human population (if weather related events don't start to wither away at that population first)
Last edited:
No matter what bad choices man makes, he will survive. Their may be a drastic reduction in number, but he will survive. That drastic reduction in number may be what will help him survive. If that does occur, let's hope that drastic reduction in # hits China & India the hardest.
1stly, I would say that, yes there will be areas of the world that are still habitable, but those areas will be fought over tooth and nail as current rich countries could suffer while other societal areas might become more dominant.
2ndly, I think that China and India feel they're in a good position to fight tooth and nail for those areas. I don't see that as having a good outcome for the US (at least the US as we know it). Even if we do retain habitable lands.
There's a non-zero chance that ultimately it just ends up in nuclear war, because the tension between nations can't be defused. If that happens, I don't know why man would WANT to survive, even if they could.
I would much prefer that a global conflict costing millions, maybe billions of lives wouldn't happen and we could instead convince our neighbors to work with us to achieve a goal (albeit a difficult goal)
Last edited:
Basically we are talking about a vacuum of leadership and ignoring the pressures that poor countries face that are different that the ones we face. The US is the world's second largest polluter on an overall basis and the largest polluter on per capita basis. We are also the wealthiest. If we sit around claiming that we don't have to do anything because the others are not is just throwing in the towel, more cowardice than leadership.
As things get worse, the pressures on our boarders will grow exponentially beyond anything we see now. Add that to the huge internal costs we face just coping domestically. The costs of ignoring climate change will far exceed taking action now.
As things get worse, the pressures on our boarders will grow exponentially beyond anything we see now. Add that to the huge internal costs we face just coping domestically. The costs of ignoring climate change will far exceed taking action now.
Taking actions which are guaranteed to fail is far worse than doing nothing as it insures no other options will be implemented. The water will certainly get hotter under this failed approach.
Both avenues likely lie in failure though, I would hesitate to say that combating climate change is guaranteed to end in failure. One just has a small chance of preventing a much worse outcome which is likely inevitable with the other option.
Based on science and math the current push is certain to fail. I’m all for clean energy and believe we should be transitioning that direction. It’s the sensible and moral direction. I hate the single strategy of our political leaders believing if the US reduces our emissions then the world will be saved from the tipping point. It won’t and it’s not even close. I want to see other avenues explored and funded. Our climate is going to get warmer and likely wetter in most of the US. Warmer is a certainty. We would be wise to devote time and money in strategies on how best to deal with the same. Sticking out head in the sand about future global emissions will lead to disaster in the US. We won’t be ready.
Is anyone on this board advocating doing “zip”?
Let me put this as simplistic as I possibly can as some are having difficulty grasping the concept. There is a path with a hungry tiger at the end. It is a scientific and mathematical fact that the tiger will eat you when you reach the end of said path. Yet some are still insisting on taking that path. I’m simply advocating looking at other paths. Preferably one without a hungry tiger at the end.
Let me put this as simplistic as I possibly can as some are having difficulty grasping the concept. There is a path with a hungry tiger at the end. It is a scientific and mathematical fact that the tiger will eat you when you reach the end of said path. Yet some are still insisting on taking that path. I’m simply advocating looking at other paths. Preferably one without a hungry tiger at the end.
Last edited:
your house is located on a creek. Every time it rains, you see water flowimg through the house, so you build a wall to direct the creek water away from the house.
later you observe watet in the house again, so you modify the wall, but the water keeps flowing.
It turns out, you didnt examine all posibilities and the problem was caused by a different source; a broken water pipe under the house.
later you observe watet in the house again, so you modify the wall, but the water keeps flowing.
It turns out, you didnt examine all posibilities and the problem was caused by a different source; a broken water pipe under the house.
Dealing with the issues is not a possibility. It will lead to geopolitical issues that we’re only starting to witness with things like Ukraine. Also, the US will get wetter in places that are already wet. Places that are dry will become legitimate deserts. And those include several places that produce many of our food-stuffs.
You are correct that we might miss our target, but the strategy you’re advocating will lead us to blow far beyond that target. The degree to which we miss it is important because it will determine the severity of the issues we have to deal with.
You jest about having blown past repeated warnings from the scientific community and then say that we can’t theoretically hit our targets (which we disagree upon). It’s like someone blowing past sign after sign that says ‘the bridge is out up ahead’ and thinking that the signs didnt have any meaning…. Then when you can actually see the cliff you whine that it’s too late to hit the brakes to prevent yourself from going over the edge… and your only proposed solution is that you might as well think about how to flap your arms to start flying.
Last edited:
These Maps Tell the Story of Two Americas: One Parched, One Soaked (Published 2021)
The country, like most of the world, is becoming both drier and wetter in the era of climate change. It depends where you live.
www.nytimes.com
A warmer climate does not simply mean a wetter climate in means a redistribution of habitable areas throughout many places in the world which will mean a redistribution of global population as well. What we’re talking about is mass migrations which will lead to borders being arbitrary blockers And it will ultimately result in large scale international conflicts over redistributed resources. We’re talking about famines in certain regions. Flooding in others. We’re talking about places that used to have drinking water fed from mountain runoff losing their access to water. We’re talking about wildfires that detriment air quality as smoke blows from dry vegetated regions to wet ones.
Fine. Then explain how we are going to succeed in global emissions peaking in 2024? Again, the current path will not prevent us from surging past the drop dead numbers. China and India simply don’t care. China started construction of 33GW of coal fired plants last year alone. Better come up with plan B. Plan A is dead.
Emissions must peak before 2025 for 'liveable future', UN report says
Humanity has less than three years to halt the rise of planet-warming carbon pollution, UN climate experts warned Monday, with any delay to peak greenhouse gas emissions likely to result in smashing…
amp.france24.com
Get your facts straight and quit quoting facebook memes. Human causes at a minimum, are 100 times average volcanic eruptions. That translates mathematically to 1% or less of co2 emissions caused by volcanoes, in comparison to human causes.
Popular Science does a good job of explaining why we need to hit carbon goals. They by start with the question “Are we screwed?”
www.popsci.com
It is also a reminder of how much time we have wasted denying reality.
Are we irreversibly screwed on climate change? This comic gives perspective.
If you're a climate scientist, you are likely to hear the same question, again and again, from inquiring minds at weddings, bar mitzvahs, birthday parties and cocktail hours: Are we screwed?
www.popsci.com
It is also a reminder of how much time we have wasted denying reality.
Meanwhile China says “screw emissions and climate change”.
asia.nikkei.com
China pivots to boost coal output, putting climate goal at risk
Beijing prioritizes economy and energy security over lower emissions
asia.nikkei.com
How many wake up calls do we need? Utah gets its…
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/...te-disaster.html?referringSource=articleShare
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/...te-disaster.html?referringSource=articleShare
Interestingly, Utah could do something about the Great Salt Lake but doesn’t. What does that tell us?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/opinion/great-salt-lake.html?referringSource=articleShare
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/opinion/great-salt-lake.html?referringSource=articleShare
if we totally quit using fossel fuels, what will the microorganisms that feed on it do. Where will the turn for their food. it becomes "the attack of the killer tomatos"
Stupid question. If we don't quit using fossil fuel, we will run out of fossil fuel. If we quit using fossil fuel there will still be oil in the ground for them to feed on. You act as if there is an endless supply in the ground, and if we quit using that supply then it will dry up? If we used up all of the oil, then there would be less of those microorganisms due to lack of food. They wouldn't die, they just wouldn't produce as many microorganisms.
The latest gasser is the opposition to ESG investing as if it were some sort of political statement (the latest misrepresentation following CRT) instead of a way a picking economic winners by investors. Given this mind set it's hard not to think that "yes, we are screwed."Popular Science does a good job of explaining why we need to hit carbon goals. They by start with the question “Are we screwed?”
Are we irreversibly screwed on climate change? This comic gives perspective.
If you're a climate scientist, you are likely to hear the same question, again and again, from inquiring minds at weddings, bar mitzvahs, birthday parties and cocktail hours: Are we screwed?
It is also a reminder of how much time we have wasted denying reality.
ESG investing is ok if the FED isnt making it a part of lending policy.. but, when the Central Bank uses it as leverage on loans to financial institutions, it becomes a problem.
Speaking of gassers.. i understand that BHO is installing massive commercial propane tanks at his Marthas Vineyard estate to run all his outdoor heaters, tiki torches, fire pits, etc... gotta make sure all those elites are comfy at those environmental fundraisers.
Representing ESG investing this way is just misrepresentation. The carbon based energy industry is just doing a CRT style bashing to prevent the possibility of disclosing its impact on the environment. Heaven forbid.
China and India are laughing at our naivety as they continue to expand their coal production.