Coupla responses - first, the planet’s population doesn’t HAVE to keep increasing. In fact, my understanding is that pop is expected to peak at some point in the foreseeable future. If people wish to have kids they cannot provide for, or societies encourage same, they share some portion of the blame for the living conditions of their resulting populations.
Second, I’ve not seen any study that indicates that climate change will result in the planet being incapable of producing sufficient food to sustain a certain number of people. May not be able to put a steak on everyone’s table, but having people eat a sustainable diet doesn’t strike me as dire. Of course, not every country will be able to be self sustaining in producing their population’s food. So international cooperation will be needed. Increased international population does not impress me as a dire result.
Millions of people die all the time - from equally avoidable causes. In a population of several billion, a million here or there is unfortunate, but is it dire? How many hundreds of thousands did we kill in Iraq over the past couple of decades for absolutely no reason? Sure, mass death ought to be avoided if possible. And the real tragedy is that this IS avoidable. But we in the US are to lazy, cheap, and pampered to take any meaningful steps to change. Lots of liberal folk are eager to participate in a protest walk for climate change, then hop in their SUV to drive to the airport to jet off spewing carbon for a vacation…
Finally, I think some of what makes me different from most conservatives is that I favor greatly increased taxes on fossil fuels, fewer subsidies for current factory farming methods, healthier diets, certain higher taxes, increased foreign cooperation and aid, drastically reduced military spending/worship, I detest organized religion and am strongly Atheistic… The fact that one aspect of my worldview might overlap with the worldview of someone with whom I disagree on other matters is not inherently negative.
Didn’t say not a big deal. But dire for whom? The species seems to have continued to exist. Apparently MANY people don’t think it a big enough deal to make at significant changes to any aspects of their comfortable lives.
Is this actually happening, though? The real answer (which I don’t know) requires a lot of data. The perceived answer for most people involves news stories about recent floods, which doesn’t tell us anything useful.
Going at the rate we’re going now, how long until the most dire consequences of climate change occur?
About 5 billion years from now, when the Sun starts to enter its death throes and expand into a red giant. At that time, it will consume Mercury, Venus and Earth. If it doesn’t make it as far as Earth, it will certainly make the planet uninhabitable.
We are NOT in any kind of a climate change crisis today. If you think we are, you need to understand that you have been lied to and you believed the lie.
You really think that if those on the left against nuclear power (and plenty of people worried about climate change aren’t) would change their minds the deniers would stop denying? Sure they would.
For instance the Paris Agreement is not against nuclear energy.
So the right can get on board, correct?
Doing something to save the earth is unfortunately political. What I object to is the requirement to include things like reparations before doing something. Is the Sierra Club against stuff like a carbon tax unless nuclear power is banned? If not, their position on nuclear energy is irrelevant.
I still wonder why states with Republican governments haven’t done anything to attract more nuclear power plants. It’s not like Alabama is going to turn anti-nuke in the foreseeable future. It is easy to blame the left, but maybe you should look inside the nuclear power industry for the source of the problem.
I drove past a giant wind farm in West Texas. I guess that paid off, and ideology had nothing to do with it.
What “many people” think and what’s actually happening according to scientific evidence are two different things. There is a rough description here of recent catastrophic weather events, there is the National Climate Assessment with far more detail, and of course there are the exhuastively researched IPCC reports on the science of climate change itself, on the impacts and vulnerabilities, and on possible approaches to mitigation, all of those reports carrying thousands of citations to the current scientific literature. Not to mention special reports like the effects of climate change on the oceans and cryosphere, on land surfaces, on the drastic impacts of global temperature exceeding 1.5 degrees C (the one that warns we have about 12 years to avoid rapidly more dire events, or the Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters.
Now tell me again why I should care that “many people don’t think it’s a big enough deal” to get off their asses and make changes? What these people don’t know – or don’t care to know – is not going to protect them. The one thing that can be said is that the wealth of North America might help to buy it some time, but even so, people have to eat, and wealth is small consolation when half of Florida is under water, both coasts are under threat, and the nation’s croplands are in the grip of permanent weather cycles that are some combination of too hot, too wet, too dry, subjected to severe water stresses like California and other parts of the world are at present, or infested with non-indigenous invasive pests, just to cite a few examples.
There’s an unfortunate if well-meaning tendency to blame a particular flood or a particular hurrricane or storm surge on climate change. It reflects a statistical truth but not a individual one. Weather will always be chaotic so that kind of individual blame can always be singled out for criticism. What is clear from the data, however, is that probabilities are shifting; once-in-a-century events are occurring much more frequently, precipitation is greatly increasing in some areas and greatly decreasing in some others as global weather systems rearrange themselves; storms on average have higher energies and even slightly higher sea levels drive stronger storm surges and flooding; droughts and floods are putting crops at risk in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions, particilarly Africa; US military studies of climate change warn of risks to national security due to mass starvations and wars; more and more species are going extinct leading to major loss of biodiversity with unknown impacts to human welfare; the oceans themselves are acidifying and warming, becoming less hospitable to sea life and less capable of continuing to absorb CO2, as well as raising sea levels just from thermal expansion alone. These are all statistically supportable and based on solid evidence, and have nothing to do with press reports of “recent floods”.
I think you are misconstruing what I said. I was never talking about climate change deniers. Instead, I was referring to people who are unwilling to actually bear the costs associated with addressing climate change.
I never said you - or anyone else - ought not “care” about climate change. However, far more important than people “caring” about it, would be for people to actually take actions and advocate significant changes to DO SOMETHING about it.
Buy less shit. Drive less, and in more economical vehicles. Be willing to pay the price of goods and services that are produced sustainably. Elect politicians who will support meaningful legislation. Support an end to the various subsidies for fossil fuel industries. …
But instead, we have huge percentages (possibly a majority?) of Americans who are perfectly willing to continue as we have, making the situation worse, and imposing ever greater burdens on future generations and more vulnerable nations. I’m not the bad guy here for pointing that out.
I agree with you 100%. One of the best places to start is to be an example of what you would like to see. It is at least somewhat effective because it sometimes generates a conversation when being ask about the choices your making.
I agree with you, but “doing something” is inextricably tied to belief. Sure, there is a middle ground of Americans who sort of tepidly believe that climate change is maybe a problem, but not enough to actually be willing to do anything about it. This is distinctly different than Europe where there is a solid preponderance of opinion about carbon mitigation and carbon taxes and commitment to action, or even Canada* where a national carbon tax has recently been introduced. The trouble with the US is that it’s the global epicenter of fake news favoring conservative climate-denial ideologies.
Indeed in Ontaro, even back in 2015, 60% of electric power came from nuclear, 24% from hydro-electric, and 6% from wind – that’s 90% of all electric power from non-polluting non-carbon-emitting sources. And my cite for this is a conservative paper. The truth of the matter is also that the power infrastructure has been politically mismanaged and power costs more than it should, but that’s an entirely different story.
Agreed. People might deny climate change, or try to minimize what is happening. But the climate doesn’t care what we think. The science around whether or not we’re impacting the climate is settled, and humans are having and have had an impact. And it’s already dire in many areas of the world. The thing in Syria, for instance, began as a climate change issue affecting farmers (not sure if it was “the cause” of that conflict, but drought in that area had some impacts), and mushroomed into a multi-state war and millions migrating to Europe.
The denial in America of man-caused climate change is just another product of the right-wing bull-bleep machine.
*“I’m only trying to say that Amity is a summer town. We need summer dollars. Now, if people can’t swim here, they’ll be glad to swim at the beaches of Cape Cod, the Hamptons, Long Island…” *
This is exactly what I mean. While I’m not closely familiar with the situation in Syria, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) said extreme weather and prolonged conflict have caused Syria’s agricultural production to hit its lowest point in thirty years. Many parts of Africa are even worse off. And while it’s true that denial of climate change in America is widespread, it isn’t homogenous, and (depending on the question you ask) deniers are now a minority of the population. But it’s still a majority of Republicans, and tends to be concentrated in conservative states where the self-reinforcing right-wing blather from talk radio, Fox News and the like, is at its strongest.
Conversely, liberal California, for instance, produces more electricity from solar than any other state, has more electric cars, and has the nation’s largest single wind farm (although Texas and Oklahoma have more in total due to their favorable geography). Coastal states threatened with sea level rise and storm surges are dealing with it according to ther political realities. New York State is building a giant protective seawall. And Florida? Ah, yes, Florida, with an average elevation of 6 feet above mean sea level and many places just 3 feet above. But Florida has a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature, so no problem: Florida has simply made it illegal to mention climate change. North Carolina, equally vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges, likewise made it illegal to quote scientific assessments on sea level rise. It’s the perfect image of the legendary King Canute ordering the tides to recede, except Canute was just a nut and not a mercenary hack trying to maintain the perceived value of some of the most expensive coastal properties in the nation.
Meanwhile you have a president who is, incredibly, trying to revive the coal industry in places like West Virginia, which has a number of coal-fired power plants in the area and whose nearby residents – climate change issues and mining hazards aside – have the highest rate of cardiopulmonary diseases in the country.
Just a couple of quick comments. Many believe we are in the process of the sixth mass extinction in the earth’s history. That would be truly catastrophically alarming. If true, it’s hypothesized to be caused partly by climate change but also by other factors, notably human overpopulation and encroachment on native animal habitats.
The point that must be made here, though, is that even if the sixth mass extinction hypothesis is not true, it’s incontrovertibly true that there has been a major loss of biodiversity, for many of the same reasons, including climate change. One of the most alarming examples is the decline of bird populations in nearly all habitats – billions of birds have vanished since 1970.
As for Canada warming up to become a “vast fertile region”, that’s not going to happen because climate is not that simple. The IPCC WG2 report states in general terms that though certain northern latitudes may experience benefits due to warming, like longer growing seasons, the benefits will be temporary and likely overtaken by negatives as temperatures continue to rise. The negative factors may include things like the northward migration of non-indigenous pests and disease vectors, drastic changes in precipitation, and other factors to which the crops are not adapted, not to mention violently destructive weather events. There are many such factors in Canadian winemaking; pests may not get killed off in the winter and may thrive and multiply; some red grapes lose their flavor qualities in high temperatures, and other factors that are already impacting winegrowing in California and Europe.
Reality is the problem. Reality is whatever bites your ass. If it affects you, it’s real; if not bothersome (yet), why worry? Human-induced climate change (HICC) is really only “real” to those with rising floods of water or refugees at their doorsteps; or whose crops are ever weather-blasted; or who are swayed by facts, not fantasies.
Folks don’t fret if they don’t feel affected. But even lies can be real. Intolerant fact-free rightwing propaganda is “real” when those who believe that crap take it out on others. The slavering mob chasing you is quite real even if their motives are insane conspiracy theories and direct incitement.
I have been chased by fantasy-driven mobs. No fun. But quite real, to me.
My early comment above: billionaires will find HICC “dire” when they can no longer obtain property insurance. (Mea culpa: I massaged software for a big insurance firm.) Now this affects poorer folks too. Due to pervasive wildfires, vast swathes of California are essentially redlined for home insurance.
When private insurers abandon an area, residents must either leave (sell out at a loss), eat it (called self-insurance i.e. you’re on your own), or pressure government for subsidized coverage, like our (not cheap) state earthquake and flood liability pools. HICC will be “dire” when Billionaires’ Rows survive only on insurance subsidies.
Is 1931 cherry-picked? You bet. I don’t buy the 99.7%. But at least 90%? Yes.
Climate denialism is wrong. But if I were predict which is closer to true, climate denialism or the following AOC quotation, I’m going to say, as a never-Trump centrist, the first one:
So. World War II. Half the farmers go to work on the climate war. Which means food rationing for all.
It has to be pointed that it is likely that this will not be a cause of the end of humanity, however, AFAIK most researchers do not ignore that there are fewer deaths directly caused by weather events. The point is that climate change will make the deaths in the future to be related to that factor.
We do know that in the case of Syria climate change was likely a factor, not the whole picture or the reason for the unrest; but one has to notice that if more evidence comes out, or we are able to identify better the events that are more likely to show up thanks to climate change, one thing that one should notice is that there is no problem for the lukewarmers to ignore or evade the deaths caused by the very likely increase of unrest.
While thanks to advances we can protect people from extreme weather events; protecting them from xenophobia, extreme nationalism or militarism will be less easy to do when the numbers of refugees increase.
So, the argument that goes like “there are fewer people dying of weather events, so we can continue to dump warming gases in the atmosphere” is really flawed, it is actually a more sophisticated denial bit coming from the Breakthrough Institute and other groups that finance FUD all over the place.
My