|
I suppose there's this issue of the most solid shot at stopping climate change through geoengineering would be very bad for China, so they certainly have incentive to try and mitigate it through other means.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I suppose there's this issue of the most solid shot at stopping climate change through geoengineering would be very bad for China, so they certainly have incentive to try and mitigate it through other means. Why would sulfides be specifically bad for China?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why would sulfides be specifically bad for China? Just from what I've seen earlier in the thread, it would change precipitation patterns in a way that would specifically create massive droughts in China. Or maybe it was massive rainfall? Pretty sure it was droughts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Just from what I've seen earlier in the thread, it would change precipitation patterns in a way that would specifically create massive droughts in China. Or maybe it was massive rainfall? Pretty sure it was droughts. It's droughts. And yes, China stands to gain incredibly from taking point on mitigating climate change, and part of that reason is that China is horrendously, stupidly polluted at the moment: https://watchers.news/2017/01/02/red-air-pollution-alert-china-january-2017/ You can say a lot about the chinese people and the state controlled media, but there's no spin to put on the air literally killing you and your children in a highly visible and painful way. China may see honest to goodness air quality riots unless they get their poo poo together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
I mean loving look at this: https://www.instagram.com/p/BOv2Bd4jxKW/
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:It's droughts. And yes, China stands to gain incredibly from taking point on mitigating climate change, and part of that reason is that China is horrendously, stupidly polluted at the moment: https://watchers.news/2017/01/02/red-air-pollution-alert-china-january-2017/ They briefly mentioned it just now on BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38538419 I'm off to bed - I've just got back from the boonies and haven't checked the thread in a week. Seems just as interesting and depressing as usual. Feeling a lot calmer now about everything for some reason having only recently adopted a stance that although the future looks horrifically bleak environmentally and politically, I'm going to enjoy my life, work, family and friends as much as I can and try to feel productive and healthier every day as well as continuing not being a dick to my fellow man or the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:Everything this species has ever created, mourned, cherished or coveted will be completely and utterly lost, on a geologic timescale. Given long enough, not even a fossil trace will remain to hint that we ever existed. Not everything. We've shot a few satellites that should make it into outer space in a few thousand years. Assuming they don't run into anything unexpected, they will wander the universe for eternity. We should probably get to work on a more information dense satellite, like that episode of Star Trek TNG, "The Inner Light".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I mean loving look at this: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=-242.52,16.92,216
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
The Ender posted:We're boned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
The only real difference between a Trump or Clinton presidency as far as actual actions and results go is that with Trump we might lose access to some satellite data that shows us how hosed we are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Trump wants to build a wall to keep out the hordes that will descend from the Mexican side. I guess it's something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
More koch bros shenanigans http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/b...re-iphone-share
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The Democrats were never going to go nuts about climate change mitigation either, especially at the federal level. They either were going to get blocked by Republicans, or drag their feet and make only the small incremental changes that aren't enough. Trump is probably going to open up drilling, stop a bunch of climate science, deregulate pollution, and otherwise make things worse, but that doesn't mean all avenues are closed. It means that collective action and movements at the grassroots level are just that much more important to participate in and expand. Now is the time to try and effect change at the state and local levels, and use organization, protests, and (one can dream) strikes to force the Republicans to do things they're ideologically opposed to. I think this is important to point out. Hillary Clinton, as was often said, is an incrementalist. She'd have favored a much less aggressive approach than what's required, and would've been quick to abandon it, much like Obama. Her environmental record, much like his, would be significantly better than doing nothing but that would've been the best you could say about it. If you care about climate change, and it's going to be the primary issue in our lives before too much longer, then it's time to start organizing locally. Don't give yourself the convenient excuses that individual effort is pointless or that we should've been doing this 30 years ago; start in your own backyard and see what you can get done. There's a lot of work to do here. Edit: https://twitter.com/AlexSteffen/status/817530732658626560 Useful/interesting thread on "living alone in a world of wounds." Steffen is often high on his own hype (stop retweeting people who are tweeting about your Medium piece, dude), but he's a decent follow nonetheless. Wanderer fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The only real difference between a Trump or Clinton presidency as far as actual actions and results go is that with Trump we might lose access to some satellite data that shows us how hosed we are. You're wrong about that. Trump's EPA will be nowhere near as aggressive on enforcing carbon limits as a Clinton EPA would have. Trump is scrapping the Clean Power Plan, something the Clinton team wanted to defend. You can argue it isn't enough, but there is a meaningful difference between the impacts from "too little" versus "nothing at all"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Trillions in costs. That's what some see in inaction. And that's what some see in action, in the form of all that unsold and unburnt coal, oil and natural gas. Trump's tapped a number of the latter. His admin could easily do worse than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The Democrats were never going to go nuts about climate change mitigation either, especially at the federal level. They either were going to get blocked by Republicans, or drag their feet and make only the small incremental changes that aren't enough. ChairMaster posted:The only real difference between a Trump or Clinton presidency as far as actual actions and results go is that with Trump we might lose access to some satellite data that shows us how hosed we are. Wanderer posted:I think this is important to point out. Hillary Clinton, as was often said, is an incrementalist. She'd have favored a much less aggressive approach than what's required, and would've been quick to abandon it, much like Obama. Her environmental record, much like his, would be significantly better than doing nothing but that would've been the best you could say about it. Hillary wouldn't have taken the decisive action on climate change that's required, and even if she wanted to the Republicans would block her. However it should be emphasized that Trump will be significantly worse, gutting the CPP alone will result in significantly higher future emissions and crippling the EPA will constrain America's ability to mitigate climate change for years. Trump's election was a disaster, and we're going to see exactly how much damage an explicitly anti-climate science administration can do to American scientific institutions. I'm emphasizing this point because I disagree that carbon emissions causing climate change is a problem that can be addressed on a local level. It's a tragedy of the commons problem where the impact will be only be felt by future people (or at least at some point in the future), and the economic incentives right now reward continued or expanded use of fossil fuels and penalize regions that try to make reductions. It's exactly the sort of problem that requires national policy and/or international agreements to address. Americans really really need the Democrats to regain control of at least one of the federal houses or the Presidency, as a single unrestrained Republican administration can cause far more damage in terms of allowing future carbon emissions than any amount of local effort can address. I'd argue this should be the top-priority for environmentally minded progressives/movements. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing against local environmental initiatives, just that significant carbon emission reductions simply can't be achieved at this level. Local efforts towards enhancing climate resilience are probably more important than ever. On the subject of state-level efforts, despite incredible whining from the usual sources Canada's province of Ontario has as of Jan 1st started its cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. Both Ontario and Quebec have linked their cap-and-trade system to California's and I was wondering if any other US states were planning on joining this framework? Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I don't want to sound like I'm arguing against local environmental initiatives, just that significant carbon emission reductions simply can't be achieved at this level. Local efforts towards enhancing climate resilience are probably more important than ever. It's where you, as just one dude, have to start. You have to get together in person with like-minded individuals and see what can be done. That's how movements begin: two or three people around a table somewhere, making plans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
A Clinton administration would have been built at the very least on the idea that you're trying your best to do what is good for people and the world. They might not agree with drastic action now, but they would agree with gathering evidence to understand the situation and can be persuaded into urgent action if the evidence is strong enough, and it becomes politically possible to fight for it. You contrast that to the Trump administration and the entire Republican, where the overall conclusions are preset. Nothing must be done, and science that points to things needing to be done is inconvenient and must be shut down. An attitude that claims simultaneously that there are too many unanswered questions, and then defunds the very methods of answering any questions. You need the former attitude to even take a single step here. The attitude that Clinton and Trump are the same is simple collective suicide and the environmentalists need to rid themselves of this idiocy ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:A Clinton administration would have been built at the very least on the idea that you're trying your best to do what is good for people and the world. lol if you actually believe this kind of balogney friendly reminder that she has close ties to the saudi arabian government
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
And that's how kids, we eliminate ourselves from political relevance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:And that's how kids, we eliminate ourselves from political relevance. climate change is politically irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
The Ocean Cleanup's pilot project goes live in Q2 2017 and they're hiring, including office staff in San Francisco.NewForumSoftware posted:lol if you actually believe this kind of balogney It's reasonable to be or to have been cynical about what Clinton would've done or tried to do. She would've been Obama's symbolic third term, with all that implies: gridlock, lukewarm central-right policies, and so on. Obama's biggest flaw as a president is how stupidly cautious he was right up until year six or so. However, Clinton could have been relied upon to live in the world, and I think she's got a much broader mean streak than Obama, so she'd at least have gotten some fraction of the right things done. She would've been unpopular with both conservatives and liberals, of course, but that's the game we play. Again: the idea that anything shy of major, civilization-redefining progress isn't progress is just left-wing virtue signaling. It's the modern climate movement's depression issue, where we listen to our sad brains as they tell us that the only reasonable solution is to power-chug vodka on the couch until the seas rise to drown us. Some progress will always be better than no progress, because big progress is made out of multiple pieces of some progress, and each piece of some progress is made of multiple bits of small progress. It's also pretty poo poo thinking to condemn or ignore a promising bit of new information because it isn't part of your obvious, preferred solution. So far in 2017, we've got progress on cloned meat for general sale (six days left on their IndieGoGo crowdfunding drive), solar's getting cheaper than ever, China's making big moves in renewables and pollution cleanup because they're worried about air quality riots, India's reforesting itself like crazy and built the world's largest solar plant, and Climeworks is doing interesting things with direct carbon capture from the air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Some progress will always be better than no progress Do you think there's really an effective difference between 5 or 6 degrees C in 2100?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol if you actually believe this kind of balogney And in spite of being totally poo poo on human rights the saudis can see the light at the end of the tunnel for fossil fuel
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you think there's really an effective difference between 5 or 6 degrees C in 2100? Limiting it to 2 degrees' rise may not be attainable, but 2.5 is better than 3. 3 is better than 4. To pretend otherwise is to sit around jerking on your nihilist doom boner and contributing nothing. Even if you're just being visibly proactive--you've limited or eliminated your animal protein intake, you make decisions with an eye on your carbon footprint, you live somewhere walkable and/or with effective mass transit, you deliberately limit how much gasoline you're responsible for burning, you're an intelligent and constructive contributor to discussions about a complex topic--that's still something you're doing to boost your local situation, and something is always better than nothing. Societal shifts always begin on the individual level. Extrapolate the argument to other areas of endeavor, and it becomes increasingly and obviously ridiculous. It's the same argument that you see right-wing politicians use to try to defund programs they don't like; the problem may have improved, but it's not gone, so let's abandon the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you think there's really an effective difference between 5 or 6 degrees C in 2100? Guy McPherson's doomsday cult notwithstanding, I think the general view is that even in worst case scenarios, climate change will not cause outright human extinction. So yes, even if civilization collapses and the earth is only habitable for a few million people around the poles, it would make an immense difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Nobody actually believes that Clinton would have taken any serious action on climate change, do they? Even if you weren't paying any attention to the last election anyone can see that she represented little more than Obama's third term, which is quite obviously not enough to do anything relevant or substantial with regards to climate change. Climate change is no longer a political issue on the national scale in America at all, I know I've said it before but Clinton didn't bring up climate change a single time after the primary. If it makes you feel better you can work towards change on a local scale and pretend like there's gonna be another Bernie Sanders in 2020 to take Trump down with their hands tied behind their back, but the 2016 election doesn't really matter much in the long run. The ultimate truth of the matter is that it was game over 16 years ago when Al Gore conceded the presidential election. America isn't omnipotent, it can't just save the world by putting Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein or someone at the wheel, nobody's going to be able to freeze the arctic again once it's gone, nobody's going to be able to build a giant vacuum cleaner to magically suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
It's the reaction to the instability that climate change will cause that's the problem. Remember that you currently live in a world with several nuclear weapons aimed at nearly every major population centre on the planet that are ready to fly at a moments notice, that humans are short sighted, self destructive and insane with paranoia about what the other humans might do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:It's where you, as just one dude, have to start. You have to get together in person with like-minded individuals and see what can be done. That's how movements begin: two or three people around a table somewhere, making plans. But my point is that these movements already exist for the purpose of getting Democrats elected (and having any chance of making significant carbon emissions reductions). The Sierra club and similar environmental lobbying groups, unions and the Democrat party structure itself. When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, environmental progressives don't need to reinvent the wheel but should join their local branch of the Democrat party (if they somehow haven't already) and work on taking back state level houses. Getting Democrats in power federally is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to making any progress on carbon emission reductions in the US. The next step is getting real progressives in charge of the party because as others have already noted incrementalists like Clinton will not take the decisive action needed on climate change. edit: ChairMaster posted:Nobody actually believes that Clinton would have taken any serious action on climate change, do they? Even if you weren't paying any attention to the last election anyone can see that she represented little more than Obama's third term, which is quite obviously not enough to do anything relevant or substantial with regards to climate change. Climate change is no longer a political issue on the national scale in America at all, I know I've said it before but Clinton didn't bring up climate change a single time after the primary. I get what you're saying, but Clinton would have been significantly better than Trump if only because she wouldn't be waging war on the EPA and climate research funded by the US govt. I'm sympathetic to Obama on the issue of climate change, I suspect he understands the critical importance of climate change but you just can't do anything substantial with a Republican house. In the bigger picture America is a conservative country (by design) and probably was never going to take the lead on mitigating climate change. However full Republican control of govt is going to make things worse than they needed to be. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:It's the reaction to the instability that climate change will cause that's the problem. Remember that you currently live in a world with several nuclear weapons aimed at nearly every major population centre on the planet that are ready to fly at a moments notice, that humans are short sighted, self destructive and insane with paranoia about what the other humans might do. I think any optimism people have is based on the idea that even though India and Pakistan are almost certainly gonna trade nukes, nobody is gonna have a go at America or Russia because they know that those two countries have more nukes than everyone else combined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I think any optimism people have is based on the idea that even though India and Pakistan are almost certainly gonna trade nukes, nobody is gonna have a go at America or Russia because they know that those two countries have more nukes than everyone else combined. well then those people need to get a clue because even a nuclear war "just" between Pakistan and India will be a worldwide catastrophe, maybe not human extinction-level but certainly civilization ending-level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
being vaporized is probably a better way to go than slowly starving, so that's nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:well then those people need to get a clue because even a nuclear war "just" between Pakistan and India will be a worldwide catastrophe, maybe not human extinction-level but certainly civilization ending-level. Are you referring to nuclear winter? I thought no one really knows how bad it would be. More of a "somewhere between horrific and not really a big deal, let's hope we never find out" sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Tiax Rules All posted:Are you referring to nuclear winter? I thought no one really knows how bad it would be. More of a "somewhere between horrific and not really a big deal, let's hope we never find out" sort of thing. A lot of it depends on unknowns as well. How many nukes do India and Pakistan have? Nobody is entirely sure. Will other nations also launch theirs? Who the gently caress knows? How many nukes does it take to cause nuclear winter and how many does it take to raise the background radiation to unacceptable levels? Again who the gently caress knows? If a part of the world that literal billions of people inhabit becomes a horrifying, irradiated crater can the rest of the world deal with starving, radiation sick refugees? Who the gently caress knows? It's one of those things where the answer is "no matter what happens it will be bad so let's please just never find out, tia." There is just no way a nuclear war of any type anywhere on this rock is anything other than "completely loving awful" so nobody wants to start one. This is also why launching anything at all, ever involves a lot of international WE ARE LAUNCHING X THING ON Y DAY AT Z TIME IT IS NOT A NUKE IT HAS NO NUKES HERE IS A PILE OF PAPERWORK CONTAINING THE PLAN AND YOU CAN COME LOOK AT IT IF YOU WANT. SERIOUSLY WE'RE JUST PUTTING A DUDE AND A SATELLITE IN SPACE IT IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT every time. Nobody wants to even risk a nuclear war happening accidentally it'd be so bad. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Well, I have a four kids and I personally am being an optimist. None of us really knows what will happen, who knows, maybe VR will get invented and they can live there rest of their lives in simulated relaties away from the utter poo poo of this doomed existence. Just kidding I have no kids, phew, thank god. Literally, imagine having kids, gently caress that would be depressing to know there's just no way they'll have a happier life than you, jesus, climate change aside, with the things going on on this rock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Tiax Rules All posted:Are you referring to nuclear winter? I thought no one really knows how bad it would be. More of a "somewhere between horrific and not really a big deal, let's hope we never find out" sort of thing. This paper is what I've based this belief on: http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf Essentially even a "limited" "regional" nuclear war -> climate disruption -> lowered agricultural production -> nations panic, govts respond by hoarding food -> prices skyrocket and potentially 2 billion people experience famine, including in developed countries like Japan that rely on food imports. Add in a worldwide crashed economy and the millions who already died in the actual war and I really don't see how most current governments survive. So there'd still be plenty of humans left alive, not extinction, but it would be utter chaos. For once I hope fishmech or someone takes this opportunity to tell me why this paper is obviously wrong, because thinking about it makes me very depressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
It's all depressing, bud, I can't even take these "a lot of little actions add up!! don't give up!!" posters seriously any more. To be ignorant is kinda my biggest wish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
In good news, Arctic sea ice extent actually ended up in 2nd lowest a few days ago. In less good news, yesterday it dipped back down to record lowest again. In bad news, area had not quite caught up even then, and is now trending down with extent. In worse news: quote:About 30 years ago, climate researchers became concerned that AMOC could suddenly shut down as a result of anthropogenic climate change. The “paleoclimatic record”—that is, what the planet’s geology and fossil record reveal of previous global climates—showed that the AMOC has rapidly collapsed in the past. “Rapidly” here means “within the span of a human lifetime.” quote:But as climate models improved, those fears dissipated. “No current comprehensive climate model projects that the AMOC will abruptly weaken or collapse in the 21st century,” wrote a team of NOAA researchers in 2008. “We therefore conclude that such an event is very unlikely.” quote:The most attention-getting of this work: a paper last year by James Hansen and 18 other scientists that argued the AMOC’s collapse could threaten global civilization this century. The paper built on older work showing that huge injections of freshwater have historically destabilized AMOC, essentially by flooding the Atlantic with cold water and screwing up its finely tuned density cycle quote:This week, the consensus on AMOC was challenged again. A team of researchers have showed in Science Advances that a popularly used climate model may significantly overestimate the stability of AMOC. Once you account for this bias, AMOC proves much more likely to collapse, they argue. And this collapse could happen without any freshwater injection from Greenland. quote:That’s because climate models make AMOC more stable than it actually is in nature, said Wei Liu, an oceanography researcher at Yale University and one of the authors of the study. “In a stable routine, if you increase the CO2, then AMOC only weakens. But in an unstable routine, if you add global warming, then AMOC will collapse by itself,” he told me. quote:Hansen, on the other hand, was more dismissive of the study’s approach. “You can’t fix the climate model simulation via ‘bias removal’—you should fix what is wrong with the model physics,” he said in an email. “They are doubling CO2, letting that change the temperature, rainfall, etc. and seeing what that does to the AMOC in their model. It’s been more than 35 million years since we had that much CO2 in the air, and sea level was more than 200 feet higher then. If we (humanity) are so stupid as to double CO2, you can count on the AMOC to shut down much faster than 300 years.” Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:This paper is what I've based this belief on: http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf Several hundred nuclear weapons have been detonated is tests over the last 60 years. The Russian Tsar Bomba alone was as powerful as a good chunk of Pakistans arsenal put together. A few dozen mid sized nukes, of the several hundred kiloton to the 5 to 15 megaton range, does not spell global destruction. Here is what an all out nuclear war between India and Pakistan would look like. 1. India and Pakistan major cities destroyed of course. Several million dead in the major cites. Several million dying later from starvation and lack of clean water as society breaks down. Hundreds of thousands of people in small somewhat independent villages would be unhurt by the blasts and continue on with their civilization, although at a lower level. Lifespans in those towns would be 10-20 years lower because of an increase in cancers and such. 2. Chaos in the middle east as millions of starving refugees try to enter. Stronger countries that can control their borders, like China, would probably machine gun refugees on the border to prevent the overwhelming of their own societies. 3. The bombs and the burning of cities would cause a local nuclear winter. For about a decade the temp would be lower and crop production would be lower in Asia, the equilvent of a large volcano and nothing the world hasn't seen dozens of times before. 4. increased instances of cancer in Asia and Europe. Again nothing we haven't seen before. Concerns over the few hundred nukes set off during decades of testing is what led to the testing ban. 5. Hundreds of millions of people in North America would see almost no physical effects from the war. 6. A worldwide depression would follow the removal of India and Pakistan from the world economy. Basically, even if a major disaster obliterates a whole region, the other regions of the earth contain large chunks of industry and several hundred million people who will go on with civilization. Even a worst case climate change scenario that saw the tropics become a desert and the middle east become a mad max wasteland would still have tens of millions of people continuing modern civilization in Canada, Siberia, and Northern Europe. I don't mean to be flippant here. We should fight as hard as we can for a better world, and any realigning of our civilization would result in millions killed in upheaval, but we would still adapt and survive. Short of a worst case Venus scenario, or complete ocean death causing oxygen content in the atmosphere to drop, or an asteroid strike by a dinosaur killer, I don't think humans can be wiped out. In 300 years, it may very well be that the tropics are uninhabited, and the poles ice free, and several island nations submerged, and the coastlines rearranged, but life, even something resembling the comfort of the modern 1st world, would go on in the northern latitudes. So fight as hard as you can but remember that defeatism is bad. If you sent a space colony ship out into the galaxy and found an uninhabited planet that looked like earth 200 years from now in a worst case scenario, it would still be a good place to set down and colonize. The biggest killer from climate change isn't going to be climate change itself, its going to be the societal upheaval as we fail to adapt. Even if it gets to the point that warming can't be stopped we could still work to adapt. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Almost forgot, EOY 2016 is out:
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 05:15
|
|