climate change news; as bad as I knew, but still...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the catastrophe?

I understand there may be significant coastal erosion, periodic flooding, and other changes to local geographies. But that’s happening all the time. So some smaller islands may get swallowed up, shorelines may change; but at the same time when a glacier or whatever melts into the sea, doesn’t that be definition expose new landmass, create new habitats for plant and animal life?

Crops that used to be grown in Florida may later be grown in Ohio. And crops from Iowa suddenly can be grown really well in previously unused vast expanses of Canada.

I understand there is a claim that rising temps will mean more sever weather events. OK. I’m skeptical, but even assuming it’s true, some incrementally higher number of thunderstorms or wildfires doesn’t seem “catastrophic” in a global sense.

First, you should read the article mentioned above about the halt to the Gulf Stream. The changes are not limited to those you've mentioned.

Second, the economic upheaval of adjusting to even the changes you've mentioned is enormous because those changes are happening fast. Think in human terms what it would mean to massively reconfigure economic activity like that.

Third, the political and national security implications are enormous. For a small example, look at the impact of the 500 year drought in Syria-- likely brought about by climate change. It pushed people from the countryside into the cities, which destabilized the country enough to spark a civil war. The civil war created a humanitarian disaster in Syria, which led to tens of thousands of refugees fleeing to Europe and elsewhere. The presence of those refugees then sparked a political backlash, giving rise to right wing parties with authoritarian politics. Look at Victor Orban in Hungary.

There is a reason that the U.S. military has been gaming out scenarios and planning for the security impacts of climate change for at least a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the catastrophe?

I understand there may be significant coastal erosion, periodic flooding, and other changes to local geographies. But that’s happening all the time. So some smaller islands may get swallowed up, shorelines may change; but at the same time when a glacier or whatever melts into the sea, doesn’t that be definition expose new landmass, create new habitats for plant and animal life?

Crops that used to be grown in Florida may later be grown in Ohio. And crops from Iowa suddenly can be grown really well in previously unused vast expanses of Canada.

I understand there is a claim that rising temps will mean more sever weather events. OK. I’m skeptical, but even assuming it’s true, some incrementally higher number of thunderstorms or wildfires doesn’t seem “catastrophic” in a global sense.

I guess you’re correct but not the way you think. It’s more like when we have multiple “once in a hundred year” events, they start to be normalized, not that they’re less impactful or catastrophic. An entire town in CA burned down in less than 3 hours. Wildfires are creating their own weather. And that’s just a little bit of the summer damage. When the smoke from a wildfire impacts air quality thousands of miles away, it’s not really small and local.

I’m also curious how you think the melting ice gives us more land. You do realize this isn’t an isolated glacier melting in the middle of Canada creating a lake and giving the polar bears a new swimming hole right? Much of the ice that’s melting is the “land” for these animals. When it’s gone they lose their connection to other land masses or just have less “land” because it melted.

Have you read an article about this or are you using “logic” to figure out how not bad this is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the catastrophe?

I understand there may be significant coastal erosion, periodic flooding, and other changes to local geographies. But that’s happening all the time. So some smaller islands may get swallowed up, shorelines may change; but at the same time when a glacier or whatever melts into the sea, doesn’t that be definition expose new landmass, create new habitats for plant and animal life?

Crops that used to be grown in Florida may later be grown in Ohio. And crops from Iowa suddenly can be grown really well in previously unused vast expanses of Canada.

I understand there is a claim that rising temps will mean more sever weather events. OK. I’m skeptical, but even assuming it’s true, some incrementally higher number of thunderstorms or wildfires doesn’t seem “catastrophic” in a global sense.

I guess you’re correct but not the way you think. It’s more like when we have multiple “once in a hundred year” events, they start to be normalized, not that they’re less impactful or catastrophic. An entire town in CA burned down in less than 3 hours. Wildfires are creating their own weather. And that’s just a little bit of the summer damage. When the smoke from a wildfire impacts air quality thousands of miles away, it’s not really small and local.

I’m also curious how you think the melting ice gives us more land. You do realize this isn’t an isolated glacier melting in the middle of Canada creating a lake and giving the polar bears a new swimming hole right? Much of the ice that’s melting is the “land” for these animals. When it’s gone they lose their connection to other land masses or just have less “land” because it melted.

Have you read an article about this or are you using “logic” to figure out how not bad this is?

This poster is right about nothing and I doubt reading the article will help. They have already made up their mind. The facts exceed their curiosity. This is the complacence that has helped keep us here, and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. I was worried and scared before. With events of this summer, I alarmed. It really feels like we are on the cusp of a catastrophic tipping point.

If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I'd have children. The global political instability and national security impacts are pretty terrifying.

I sort of agree and my youngest is only 7, but I know several people that had new babies this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. I was worried and scared before. With events of this summer, I alarmed. It really feels like we are on the cusp of a catastrophic tipping point.

If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I'd have children. The global political instability and national security impacts are pretty terrifying.

I sort of agree and my youngest is only 7, but I know several people that had new babies this year.

+1. It feels totally hopeless.

[Anonymous]

YOLO

That's my attitude now because I'm sick of sacrificing when everyone else is being selfish!

[Anonymous]

“ It’s not a personal thing that could have helped. It’s industry and the oil and gas.”

+1
Only government can make a dent here.

[Anonymous]

It’s hard to even catalog all the risks. Just for one…ancient diseases escaping out of the melting permafrost! Large portions of the equatorial countries will be totally uninhabitable in this century leading to massive political instability as the migrate north…
It’s all bad. And we can blame the Chinese all we want (I’m not a fan on their government certainly) but the truth is they are building their economy based almost entirely on our need for consumption. And they did try to cut down on their population growth. Imagine what it would be without the one child policy for all those decades.

[Anonymous]

I read Collapse years ago, and will do some more reading to refresh my memory, but honestly, seems to me, that the invention of the airplane was really the nail in the coffin. I bet we'd get many more generations if we didn't move people and goods all over our skies via air.

[Anonymous]

How certain are all of these dire predictions to occur? Are there any potential intervening events or new technological developments that could change the course of the doomsday scenarios?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read Collapse years ago, and will do some more reading to refresh my memory, but honestly, seems to me, that the invention of the airplane was really the nail in the coffin. I bet we'd get many more generations if we didn't move people and goods all over our skies via air.

I'm 54 and started crying at the latest climate change news. It's been predicted most of my life and now is coming to pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read Collapse years ago, and will do some more reading to refresh my memory, but honestly, seems to me, that the invention of the airplane was really the nail in the coffin. I bet we'd get many more generations if we didn't move people and goods all over our skies via air.

I'm 54 and started crying at the latest climate change news. It's been predicted most of my life and now is coming to pass.

I'm 42 and I thought this would be something that my grandkids would see, or my kids. I didn't expect to see this now, in my lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it's really really bad, but "we're just screwed" is irresponsible to our kids. Our choices do still make a difference in just how bad it's going to be. But this isn't a "use less plastic" issue. This isba major political action issue

[Anonymous]

Imagine if Biden or Obama mobilized their millions of supporters to get out in the streets and demand immediate action on climate change.

Because that’s what we need: a mass civil action. Sadly, until we’re in the streets demanding this be dealt with, nothing will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing - Short of drastically changing how we live, there's not much we can do. A touch of recycling here and there and eating local isn't going to cut it. We would need to almost completely stop driving, flying, shipping, and most manufacturing. We've got all these feel-good solutions (no straws in DC) but the don't and never would move the needle.

Unless we all agree to change our lifestyle to echo those of many generations past, this is not solvable.

Yes, I would be really interested in a report that did not just talk about reducing XYZ emissions, preventing XX% of deforestation... but really mapped out in every practical sense how our everyday lives would have to change (esp. with an eye to the already existing discrepancies between the lifestyles of developing and developed nations). I do not really see this type of nuts and bolts analysis.

Start with you thermostat, then look at your diet, then look at your buying patters and, finally, reduce, reuse, recycle