The Climate Change Thread: Or The Perils of Carbon

[Neutraligon]

Which does not say that we are not overpopulated, although overpopulation on a world wide basis is rather difficult to measure.

The secondary point is this. If we were overpopulated, we would be having a shortage of either space (we’re not) or resources. So, let’s focus on the second one. We seem to be good on everything. Except water. That might be a problem. (Now, one could be pedantic, and explain that that’s not caused by overpopulation, but that’s not really the point, nor is it true everywhere.) So, we come to other solutions. And we have them. Mind you, the transition won’t be easy, and it definitely won’t allow us to exist in necessarily the same way.

That depends on whom you mean by we are ok as far as resources. There are after all large parts of various populations who do not have enough food, hence why I said it is difficult to talk about overpopulation on a global scale.

[Kowani]

The secondary point is this. If we were overpopulated, we would be having a shortage of either space (we’re not) or resources. So, let’s focus on the second one. We seem to be good on everything. Except water. That might be a problem. (Now, one could be pedantic, and explain that that’s not caused by overpopulation, but that’s not really the point, nor is it true everywhere.) So, we come to other solutions. And we have them. Mind you, the transition won’t be easy, and it definitely won’t allow us to exist in necessarily the same way.

That depends on whom you mean by we are ok as far as resources. There are after all large parts of various populations who do not have enough food, hence why I said it is difficult to talk about overpopulation on a global scale.

Right. And yet, in the places where people do have access to food, they remain below replacement levels. If said access was extended to the Global South, current trends would only speed up.

[Tristian]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

[Bombadil]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

I'm sure that's what the natives of Easter Island thought as they cut down the last remaining trees.

[Tristian]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

I'm sure that's what the natives of Easter Island thought as they cut down the last remaining trees.

And such a tiny, insignificant island it is.

[Kowani]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

We’ve yet to face a global threat. This is our first one.

[Tristian]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

We’ve yet to face a global threat. This is our first one.

We have survived ice ages

[Bombadil]

I'm sure that's what the natives of Easter Island thought as they cut down the last remaining trees.

And such a tiny, insignificant island it is.

It's a lesson to show that humans can and will destroy themselves. It's utterly arrogant to think we're naturally ordained to survive. And even if we do adapt and survive we do so in a world far more harsh and miserable than what we have now.

On Easter Island, people learned to live with less and forgot what it was like to have more. Maybe that will happen to us. There's a lesson here. It's not a happy one.

As MacKinnon puts it: "If you're waiting for an ecological crisis to persuade human beings to change their troubled relationship with nature — you could be waiting a long, long time."

[Tristian]

And such a tiny, insignificant island it is.

It's a lesson to show that humans can and will destroy themselves. It's utterly arrogant to think we're naturally ordained to survive. And even if we do adapt and survive we do so in a world far more harsh and miserable than what we have now.

On Easter Island, people learned to live with less and forgot what it was like to have more. Maybe that will happen to us. There's a lesson here. It's not a happy one.

As MacKinnon puts it: "If you're waiting for an ecological crisis to persuade human beings to change their troubled relationship with nature — you could be waiting a long, long time."

Yeah, because a tiny island that most people in the world have never heard of is a great comparison to a whole planet.

[Bombadil]

It's a lesson to show that humans can and will destroy themselves. It's utterly arrogant to think we're naturally ordained to survive. And even if we do adapt and survive we do so in a world far more harsh and miserable than what we have now.

On Easter Island, people learned to live with less and forgot what it was like to have more. Maybe that will happen to us. There's a lesson here. It's not a happy one.

As MacKinnon puts it: "If you're waiting for an ecological crisis to persuade human beings to change their troubled relationship with nature — you could be waiting a long, long time."

Yeah, because a tiny island that most people in the world have never heard of is a great comparison to a whole planet.

Yeah, it is actually, and there's millions of examples of destructive habits placing short term wants over long term benefits, as well as dealing with short term issues with greater attention than long term, especially abstract, issues.

CONAN: As you point out in your piece, our brains are exquisitely tuned to, if we see a baseball coming at our head, get out of the way.

Prof. GILBERT: Exactly so. So that's one of the features of climate change that makes it such an insidious threat, is that it's long-term. It's not something that threatens us this afternoon, but rather something that threatens us in the ensuing decades. Human beings are very good at getting out of the way of a speeding baseball. Godzilla comes running down the street, we know to run the other way. We're very good at clear and present danger, like every mammal is. That's why we've survived as long as we have.

Link

Blithely believing we're indestructible is pretty much the exact reason we're so destructible.

[Kowani]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

We’ve yet to face a global threat. This is our first one.

[Tristian]

It will suck, yes. But we won't die in large numbers. Humans are a strong, innovative lot and world history has always seen nature evolve and adapt to environmental changes.

We’ve yet to face a global threat. This is our first one.

Okay, so you are an ice age-denier. Noted.

[Bombadil]

We’ve yet to face a global threat. This is our first one.

Okay, so you are an ice age-denier. Noted.

First, we did not adapt and evolve to survive the last ice age, we escaped to those pockets of the world that could sustain life. Second it's one thing to survive a natural phenomenon, it's quite another to create a phenomenon ourselves and do nothing about it.

Just to say 'oh well but we'll survive' doesn't, in anyway, preclude us from doing something that we're more than capable of doing to halt the effect we're creating.

To believe it won't have catastrophic effects is the black swan theory in effect, that because there hasn't been an event that wipes out human life then there can't be one. It's the height of blindness and stupidity.

Yet the point is we can do something to change things, so we should be.

[Tristian]

Okay, so you are an ice age-denier. Noted.

First, we did not adapt and evolve to survive the last ice age, we escaped to those pockets of the world that could sustain life. Second it's one thing to survive a natural phenomenon, it's quite another to create a phenomenon ourselves and do nothing about it.

Just to say 'oh well but we'll survive' doesn't, in anyway, preclude us from doing something that we're more than capable of doing to halt the effect we're creating.

To believe it won't have catastrophic effects is the black swan theory in effect, that because there hasn't been an event that wipes out human life then there can't be one. It's the height of blindness and stupidity.

Yet the point is we can do something to change things, so we should be.

So, you are an ice age-denier. Got it.

And if you want something done, talk to China. They are by far the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (and pollution in general). Of course, they probably won't listen to you.

[Bombadil]

First, we did not adapt and evolve to survive the last ice age, we escaped to those pockets of the world that could sustain life. Second it's one thing to survive a natural phenomenon, it's quite another to create a phenomenon ourselves and do nothing about it.

Just to say 'oh well but we'll survive' doesn't, in anyway, preclude us from doing something that we're more than capable of doing to halt the effect we're creating.

To believe it won't have catastrophic effects is the black swan theory in effect, that because there hasn't been an event that wipes out human life then there can't be one. It's the height of blindness and stupidity.

Yet the point is we can do something to change things, so we should be.

So, you are an ice age-denier. Got it.

Is English not your first language?

And if you want something done, talk to China. They are by far the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (and pollution in general). Of course, they probably won't listen to you.

China puts out twice as much as the US with 5 times the population so each US individual on average is responsible for 3 times the amount of any Chinese individual. However it's irrelevant really given it should be a global concern to reduce our emissions and quickly.

[Nakena]

Even massive CO2 reduction to unrealistic amounts will only delay the process but is unlikely to stop it.

The point of no return has been crossed.

We need get ready for the hot times ahead.

[Kowani]

Point seems to have been missed. So, let’s go with some basic terms. The first being replacement level. If you don’t know what that is, we’re not going anywhere.

OF course I know what it is, and replacement level still doesn't matter. You can stop talking down to me like a child, especially since I know more about this than you.

Then act like it.

[Lanoraie II]

OF course I know what it is, and replacement level still doesn't matter. You can stop talking down to me like a child, especially since I know more about this than you.

Then act like it.

I'll reengage with you when you can stop acting so rude. You think you know everything yet I proved you wrong.

[Kowani]

Then act like it.

I'll reengage with you when you can stop acting so rude. You think you know everything yet I proved you wrong.

No, no you didn’t. You asserted something. Not remotely the same thing. Especially when you missed the crux of the actual argument, talking about how “I know more than you” isn’t going to help your case.

[Novus America]

So, you are an ice age-denier. Got it.

Is English not your first language?

And if you want something done, talk to China. They are by far the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (and pollution in general). Of course, they probably won't listen to you.

China puts out twice as much as the US with 5 times the population so each US individual on average is responsible for 3 times the amount of any Chinese individual. However it's irrelevant really given it should be a global concern to reduce our emissions and quickly.

The US puts out far less per GDP though. We produce far more economic value per carbon released.
Still everyone needs to do what we can. One thing the PRC has is they do not have to deal with anti nuclear protest idiocy, but they are still opening more fossil plants.

We really need a complete, global ideally, but wherever we can moratorium on fossil plants. Absolutely no new ones.

Then start converting the worst of the existing ones to nuclear.

The US should also ban the importation of internal combustion engines. Would greatly reduce our trade deficit while encouraging a shift to electric.

[Rojava Free State]

Is English not your first language?



China puts out twice as much as the US with 5 times the population so each US individual on average is responsible for 3 times the amount of any Chinese individual. However it's irrelevant really given it should be a global concern to reduce our emissions and quickly.

The US puts out far less per GDP though. We produce far more economic value per carbon released.
Still everyone needs to do what we can. One thing the PRC has is they do not have to deal with anti nuclear protest idiocy, but they are still opening more fossil plants.

We really need a complete, global ideally, but wherever we can moratorium on fossil plants. Absolutely no new ones.

Then start converting the worst of the existing ones to nuclear.

The US should also ban the importation of internal combustion engines. Would greatly reduce our trade deficit while encouraging a shift to electric.

Can we do that? Definitely. Will Americans do that? No because we usually don't care about things that'll happen in the future and thus it may already be too late

[Ifreann]

That's going to dry up by 2050.

PROTIP: No prediction that ends with "by 2050" is true.

[Novus America]

The US puts out far less per GDP though. We produce far more economic value per carbon released.
Still everyone needs to do what we can. One thing the PRC has is they do not have to deal with anti nuclear protest idiocy, but they are still opening more fossil plants.

We really need a complete, global ideally, but wherever we can moratorium on fossil plants. Absolutely no new ones.

Then start converting the worst of the existing ones to nuclear.

The US should also ban the importation of internal combustion engines. Would greatly reduce our trade deficit while encouraging a shift to electric.

Can we do that? Definitely. Will Americans do that? No because we usually don't care about things that'll happen in the future and thus it may already be too late

I mean I cannot argue. Again we were supposed to have done this by 1980.
The solution is there, we just are too ignorant to implement it.

[Duvniask]

That's going to dry up by 2050.

PROTIP: No prediction that ends with "by 2050" is true.

Prediction: We'll be 31 years older by 2050.