zlacker

[return to "Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII"]
1. just_s+nm[view] [source] 2021-01-22 20:17:44
>>LinuxB+(OP)
The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years.

It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

◧◩
2. breakf+7s[view] [source] 2021-01-22 20:51:58
>>just_s+nm
All it does it prove how fruitless the prevention of climate change is.

A total shutdown of the entire world economy on an unprecedented scale still doesn't track enough to prevent climate change.

If that isn't a clear indicator of how severe the situation is then I don't know what else is.

◧◩◪
3. nostra+Ou[view] [source] 2021-01-22 21:08:43
>>breakf+7s
Unpopular prediction: we're going to solve global warming by the 22nd century, but we're going to "solve" it with nuclear winter and the destruction of 80-90% of humanity. Once we're down to a billion people or so and most of what passes for advanced civilization has been destroyed, carbon emissions and warming won't be a problem.
◧◩◪◨
4. missed+mI[view] [source] 2021-01-22 22:43:04
>>nostra+Ou
Do you realize how cheap sea walls are? The Dutch were building them 800 years ago with medieval technology and resources.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. nostra+ZU[view] [source] 2021-01-23 00:00:55
>>missed+mI
My threat model for global warming is different from most people's (hence "unpopular prediction"). I think sea-level rise is going to be a non-event: the worst models predict about 18 inches over a century, which is less than tidal variation in most places.

Changing weather and vegetation patterns is going to be a big event. We're going to see some previously fertile areas (Mesopotamia, Northern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa) suffer from decade-long droughts, while other previously uninhabitable areas (Canadian & Russian taiga and the Sahara, for example) become fertile grasslands. This will drive widespread migration, which has a tendency to destroy political stability and lead to mass wars. Nature isn't going to kill us; we're going to kill each other because some of us are going to starve and others are going to get fabulously wealthy.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. missed+Na1[view] [source] 2021-01-23 02:29:34
>>nostra+ZU
But I think what's overlooked is that these changes will happen over a long period of time. 20, 50, 100 years. We will grow different crops 100 years hence, but we were growing different crops 100 years ago. There will be lots of immigration over the next 100 years, but there's been a lot of immigration over the past 100 years, including in my family and likely in yours.

I think the costs of a changing climate are real, but I think the benefits are too often overlooked. For instance, most landmass on earth is not at the equator, but it's in the northern hemisphere. Much of it is uninhabitable at present but will become habitable as the climate changes. Canada, Sweden, Finland, and others will become more than 100km tall. A lot of Russia, and Northern Europe, as well as Mongolia and South America will become more habitable. Further, according to Lancet, very cold weather kills more people than very hot weather, so as winters become more mild and summers become hotter, the net effect will be fewer deaths.

[go to top]