New Zealand's plan to prepare for inevitable climate change impacts(rnz.co.nz)
rnz.co.nz
New Zealand's plan to prepare for inevitable climate change impacts
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/472305/new-zealand-s-plan-to-prepare-for-inevitable-climate-change-impacts-five-areas-where-the-hard-work-starts-now
140 comments
That's what people said about the IRA essentially, and yet the bill passed and it will have a huge impact on Americas move towards a more sustainable future. If we want to have a future (and by we I mean humanity), we need optimism and activism, not complacency and defeatism.
OotL. What bill?
The Inflation Reduction Act
https://grist.org/politics/house-passes-the-inflation-reduct...
https://grist.org/politics/house-passes-the-inflation-reduct...
A Youtube video that may be better targetted for those out of the loop:
The biggest Climate Bill of your life - But What does it do!? -- vlogbrothers
https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s
The biggest Climate Bill of your life - But What does it do!? -- vlogbrothers
https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s
Likely the Inflation Reduction Act.
Labour has problems; I have problems with Labour's paternalism and fetish for a nanny-state, but I would never accuse them of "generally doing nothing".
For example, Labour banned guns, insulated and ventilated cold/moldy rental homes, vaccinated >90% of the population (while simultaneously keeping covid at bay until that was achived), and a lot more https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/wvifwk/so_what_...
They also embarked on a massive program to fix the water quality issues you mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Waters_reform_programme
So, nannies they may be, layabouts they are not.
For example, Labour banned guns, insulated and ventilated cold/moldy rental homes, vaccinated >90% of the population (while simultaneously keeping covid at bay until that was achived), and a lot more https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/wvifwk/so_what_...
They also embarked on a massive program to fix the water quality issues you mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Waters_reform_programme
So, nannies they may be, layabouts they are not.
What about the substantial growth in Child poverty, massive inflation, lack of housing stock growth (kiwibuild has delivered less than 5% of what was promised) etc. Labour may not be layabouts, but they are a group of busy idiots.
Does it not make very little sense to blame inflation on this particular government when every nation is suffering inflation in the wake of a barely-mitigated global pandemic?
Does it not follow that when inflation strikes, poverty increases, because the same wages buy less food? And have Labour not acted strongly against the most damaging parts of poverty, with the new insulation and ventilation policies and subsidies, the winter energy payments, and the free school lunches?
We can blame Labour for many things, like failing to act quickly enough to alleviate the housing crisis, but to blame them for global inflation seems like tabloid news and not critical thought.
Does it not follow that when inflation strikes, poverty increases, because the same wages buy less food? And have Labour not acted strongly against the most damaging parts of poverty, with the new insulation and ventilation policies and subsidies, the winter energy payments, and the free school lunches?
We can blame Labour for many things, like failing to act quickly enough to alleviate the housing crisis, but to blame them for global inflation seems like tabloid news and not critical thought.
Child poverty measures have gone DOWN. House building is at its highest rate since the 70s and inflation is a global phenomenon.
Banned _some_ guns. My semi-auto .22, bolt-action .308, and the .177 air rifle for my kids to plink targets are still fine and dandy.
Yes I'm aware and disagree with the policy, but I would still consider it "something" in contrast to "do-nothing Labour", considering the "something" in question has been a political battleground in the US for decades.
tl;dr: they banned >.22 semi-autos.
tl;dr: they banned >.22 semi-autos.
[deleted]
Two shots for summer.
> though James Shaw - the environment minister is Green
I've always been deeply frustrated at Green's unwillingness to work with National. By playing kingmaker like NZ First did, the party would have had much more impact on the environment, had their primary focus actually been environment.
I know that this would never happen because Green is not an environmental party but an actual left wing party that a Labour should have been instead of...generally doing nothing.
I've always been deeply frustrated at Green's unwillingness to work with National. By playing kingmaker like NZ First did, the party would have had much more impact on the environment, had their primary focus actually been environment.
I know that this would never happen because Green is not an environmental party but an actual left wing party that a Labour should have been instead of...generally doing nothing.
It doesn't help that National won't meet the Greens even half-way on their social issues.
Or that they purged the blue-greens cos Judith Collins.
I'd like a liberal green party a la Switzerland, as the Greens are too far left for my centre-left self.
Or that they purged the blue-greens cos Judith Collins.
I'd like a liberal green party a la Switzerland, as the Greens are too far left for my centre-left self.
It would be nice to be able to vote for policies and not parties.
Not a lot of difference between national and labour these days IMO. Both quite centrist with just a few differences in policy and personalities here and there.
I wouldn't say National is Christian by any means.
Luxons maiden speech had him discussing his Christianity and he was evasive regarding abortion law change (while being anti abortion himself). His party has a Christian history and a christian conservative bent.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-air-nz-boss-christopher...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-air-nz-boss-christopher...
[deleted]
It really is. New Conservatives have cut out a large part of the die hards, but just look where wealthy National voters and MPs send their kids.
As a Christian right winger I'd say that National doesn't represent my political views. They're much like Labour, they do very little.
I have very little hope that our government will improve no matter who is voted in. They seem determined to slowly make things worse, not matter what direction they pick.
I have very little hope that our government will improve no matter who is voted in. They seem determined to slowly make things worse, not matter what direction they pick.
As a non-religious part of the majority I'm happy that your religious views are no longer represented in political views, as they're a niche perspective and should not be foisted on society at large.
Nit picking, but not quite the majority yet, last NZ census had irreligious at 48%
What's the technical term for "largest single bloc"? Because that other 52% isn't just Christian.
Plurality [1].
[1]: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ...
[1]: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ...
Thanks!
With the exception of laws regarding religion itself (say prayer in school) almost all laws with religious supporters also have non-religious supporters. The views aren't purely "religious" in basis.
Things are getting real, real fast. I have no hope that we collectively turn things around and feel we are instead basically heading for an Elysium like situation. That's because we're acting too late and too slow to help everyone (not like we help everyone now anyway). It's pretty scary to be honest.
People just do not care about climate change and won't until their water or gas shuts off. Even now, my neighbors are tearing down trees, and residents, businesses, and the government have huge lawns that are wastelands. They're never used by humans and are mowed and pruned such that no wildlife uses them either.
People just do not care about climate change and won't until their water or gas shuts off. Even now, my neighbors are tearing down trees, and residents, businesses, and the government have huge lawns that are wastelands. They're never used by humans and are mowed and pruned such that no wildlife uses them either.
Bring fatalistic is part of the problem and rarely part of any solutions. I know for sure that the people who do nothing will achieve nothing. Wait and see is not a viable strategy to get anything done.
The simple reality is that we have already demonstrated that we can drastically modify climate in a very short time span. Not for the better unfortunately and arguably unintentionally. But how did that happen? Simple: economics. Dangling a carrot in front of people gets them acting really quickly and enthusiastically. We started burning fossil fuels at a truly massive scale during the industrial revolution.
Basically, getting to zero carbon is now about economic survival. Doing so has some nice side effects like reducing emissions. But it's basically gone from wouldn't it be cute to have some solar panels on my roof to, I'd better put some solar panels on my roof because I'll be paying through my nose for gas and save buckets of money. Nothing like some economic incentives to get even the most staunch climate change deniers investing in roof top solar and other solutions. Now world + dog is installing batteries, solar, wind mills, etc. Not because they are cute but because they provide something desirable: cheap energy. Ever since the cost curves crossed, people have an insatiable demand for this stuff. To the point where once ambitious and seemingly infeasible goals for carbon reduction are being moved forward. Because reality is out pacing ambition. Even the most optimistic predictions a decade ago are now being surpassed.
That's a trick that can be repeated. Identify some solutions, make it profitable for people to implement those. Sit back and relax while they get really creative doing those things and working out better ways to do those things. It worked for energy. It's working for transport (EVs are booming nicely). It could work for agriculture, and other sectors. There's a lot that is enabled by cheap plentiful energy too and we're starting to get that. Renewable energy is pretty awesome from a cost point of view.
Actively reducing carbon in our atmosphere is the next big challenge. If you look at it from an economical point of view the simple reality is that capturing carbon is a lot of work without a lot of economic reward. There are plenty of ways to do this technically but the main challenge is incentivizing people to start doing those things at scale. Letting nature take its course is going to take too long. So, the key challenge is figuring out the economics. Once we nail that, the rest might happen rapidly.
The simple reality is that we have already demonstrated that we can drastically modify climate in a very short time span. Not for the better unfortunately and arguably unintentionally. But how did that happen? Simple: economics. Dangling a carrot in front of people gets them acting really quickly and enthusiastically. We started burning fossil fuels at a truly massive scale during the industrial revolution.
Basically, getting to zero carbon is now about economic survival. Doing so has some nice side effects like reducing emissions. But it's basically gone from wouldn't it be cute to have some solar panels on my roof to, I'd better put some solar panels on my roof because I'll be paying through my nose for gas and save buckets of money. Nothing like some economic incentives to get even the most staunch climate change deniers investing in roof top solar and other solutions. Now world + dog is installing batteries, solar, wind mills, etc. Not because they are cute but because they provide something desirable: cheap energy. Ever since the cost curves crossed, people have an insatiable demand for this stuff. To the point where once ambitious and seemingly infeasible goals for carbon reduction are being moved forward. Because reality is out pacing ambition. Even the most optimistic predictions a decade ago are now being surpassed.
That's a trick that can be repeated. Identify some solutions, make it profitable for people to implement those. Sit back and relax while they get really creative doing those things and working out better ways to do those things. It worked for energy. It's working for transport (EVs are booming nicely). It could work for agriculture, and other sectors. There's a lot that is enabled by cheap plentiful energy too and we're starting to get that. Renewable energy is pretty awesome from a cost point of view.
Actively reducing carbon in our atmosphere is the next big challenge. If you look at it from an economical point of view the simple reality is that capturing carbon is a lot of work without a lot of economic reward. There are plenty of ways to do this technically but the main challenge is incentivizing people to start doing those things at scale. Letting nature take its course is going to take too long. So, the key challenge is figuring out the economics. Once we nail that, the rest might happen rapidly.
Jus to be clear, I have little hope for the general collective, but I do take what actions I can.
It’s not scary to be honest.
It’s been staring us in the face for 60 years. Maybe 100.
Accept your fate like the rest of us, and make sure you stock up on dissociatives and pain meds for when the time is nigh.
Nobody cares!
It’s been staring us in the face for 60 years. Maybe 100.
Accept your fate like the rest of us, and make sure you stock up on dissociatives and pain meds for when the time is nigh.
Nobody cares!
If covid has taught us anything, it's that even if a global problem becomes direct and starts killing millions of people, a large percentage of the population won't care and will actively continue to deny it.
And in the end things were still fine for them.
Not for the people who ended up with long term chronic illness, or you know, dead
Their risk compared to someone who cared wasn’t much different in the end assuming they got vaccinated. Which was my main point. Stressing out over things doesn’t really change your outcomes.
This, unfortunately, is right on the money.
Please don't speak for me. I care. A lot. If some folks prefer to just lie down, fine. But I question the utility of glorifying failure.
I don’t know about utility, but sooner or later you learn to recognize the futility in raging against the machine.
Unless I’m speaking to the executive control behind a multi billion dollar organization, your caring is pretty much meaningless beyond the cubic foot of brain matter that sweats it.
Unless I’m speaking to the executive control behind a multi billion dollar organization, your caring is pretty much meaningless beyond the cubic foot of brain matter that sweats it.
> your caring is pretty much meaningless
What data is this prediction based on?
> sooner or later you learn to recognize the futility in raging against the machine.
I don't quite follow the reasoning here. Is your concern about the mental health of those doing the raging? It is good to stop raging, not a very useful emotion for sustained, demanding tasks... As a personal anecdote, I'm now finding it much easier to act from a position of purposefulness. I feel much better overall after deciding I'd wallowed in fatalism for too long.
What's up danger. Hey, don't be a stranger.
What data is this prediction based on?
> sooner or later you learn to recognize the futility in raging against the machine.
I don't quite follow the reasoning here. Is your concern about the mental health of those doing the raging? It is good to stop raging, not a very useful emotion for sustained, demanding tasks... As a personal anecdote, I'm now finding it much easier to act from a position of purposefulness. I feel much better overall after deciding I'd wallowed in fatalism for too long.
What's up danger. Hey, don't be a stranger.
You can still participate in activism and vote (provided you live in a democracy naturally), you aren't completely impotent and your efforts aren't futile.
I'll leave aside the wider issues of climate change for a moment and address sea level rises alone, since it's one of the big scary points due to fears of mass coastal migrations inland.
Anyhow, for a bit of perspective, NASA's own research on potential sea level rises argues that in the worst case scenario for climate warming, we should see a rise of just over a meter by 2100 and a possible rise of 5 meters by 2300. Now, if you like, go to, for example (though it only focuses on the United States) NOAA's map tool for visualizing different levels of rising water. (1)
See for yourself what a one meter rise looks like and then also a completely drastic 300-year 5 meter increase. To be sure, both would be major problems for millions of people and huge tracts of coastal land, but bear in mind that these people and the governments/private interests/individuals responsible for those areas would have from ONE TO THREE centuries to prepare.
This is a lot of time even for slow measures at current technology and resources to prepare remarkably well. It's reasonable to suppose that over the next 100 years (barring some other different catastrophe), we'll have even better technology and resources at our disposal, especially if the water visibly starts to go up and coastal fresh water table salinity starts to grow large enough to cause crop failures. At least as far as sea level rises are concerned, solutions are completely manageable.
The doom scenarios for rising oceans are grotesquely overblown by a large base of people who just can't seem to emotionally help themselves in not specifically and forcefully insisting on catastrophic situations, despite millennia of humanity showing just how adaptive it is and despite the literal best science on the matter arguing for something that is much less catastrophic when actually examined.
1. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-11581024.66377982...
NASA sea level rise predictions https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating...
Anyhow, for a bit of perspective, NASA's own research on potential sea level rises argues that in the worst case scenario for climate warming, we should see a rise of just over a meter by 2100 and a possible rise of 5 meters by 2300. Now, if you like, go to, for example (though it only focuses on the United States) NOAA's map tool for visualizing different levels of rising water. (1)
See for yourself what a one meter rise looks like and then also a completely drastic 300-year 5 meter increase. To be sure, both would be major problems for millions of people and huge tracts of coastal land, but bear in mind that these people and the governments/private interests/individuals responsible for those areas would have from ONE TO THREE centuries to prepare.
This is a lot of time even for slow measures at current technology and resources to prepare remarkably well. It's reasonable to suppose that over the next 100 years (barring some other different catastrophe), we'll have even better technology and resources at our disposal, especially if the water visibly starts to go up and coastal fresh water table salinity starts to grow large enough to cause crop failures. At least as far as sea level rises are concerned, solutions are completely manageable.
The doom scenarios for rising oceans are grotesquely overblown by a large base of people who just can't seem to emotionally help themselves in not specifically and forcefully insisting on catastrophic situations, despite millennia of humanity showing just how adaptive it is and despite the literal best science on the matter arguing for something that is much less catastrophic when actually examined.
1. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-11581024.66377982...
NASA sea level rise predictions https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating...
Would a person in a doomsday cult know that they're in a doomsday cult? not to question your beliefs, but just to add a little perspective. Every culture had an end of the world prophecy. Yet the world persevered, but all of the believers are long gone, along with most of their cultures. My point being you will be long gone before the planet is.
I've had IRL conversations with almost fanatical climate change activists, and I believe they look at it this way: even if they're completely 100% wrong, nothing is lost by improving how we treat the environment.
That might be their feel good belief, but its not based on reality. If you raise the price of Energy, the people at the bottom will suffer the most. There is real risk of relatively affluent Europeans going cold and hungry this winter, due to misguided beliefs that solar will provide their energy needs, in cold and overcast places like Germany.
The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce. And that is even more impactful of the risk of people going hungry all over the world.
The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce. And that is even more impactful of the risk of people going hungry all over the world.
Nobody is arguing for just increasing the price of energy. The whole point is to transition to other, greener energy sources, and while that's more expensive, soften the blow through subsidies and the like.
> There is real risk of relatively affluent Europeans going cold and hungry this winter, due to misguided beliefs that solar will provide their energy needs, in cold and overcast places like Germany.
Nope. Due to the misguided belief that Russia and its gas can be trusted as a transitional energy source until there's no more need for fossil fuels. Nobody expected that German solar would power the whole of Europe, the goal was always diverse energy generation methods (hydro, solar, wind onshore and offshore, tidal, nuclear). It was stupid to rely on gas for the transition, IMHO, and it was even stupider to rely on Russian gas. If it was Russian, Algerian, Azeri, Qatari gas in equal quantities, it wouldn't have been a problem that Putin is an insane warmonger (bar the emissions associated).
> The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce
Yes, which is where subsidies would apply until there are alternatives like green hydrogen.
> There is real risk of relatively affluent Europeans going cold and hungry this winter, due to misguided beliefs that solar will provide their energy needs, in cold and overcast places like Germany.
Nope. Due to the misguided belief that Russia and its gas can be trusted as a transitional energy source until there's no more need for fossil fuels. Nobody expected that German solar would power the whole of Europe, the goal was always diverse energy generation methods (hydro, solar, wind onshore and offshore, tidal, nuclear). It was stupid to rely on gas for the transition, IMHO, and it was even stupider to rely on Russian gas. If it was Russian, Algerian, Azeri, Qatari gas in equal quantities, it wouldn't have been a problem that Putin is an insane warmonger (bar the emissions associated).
> The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce
Yes, which is where subsidies would apply until there are alternatives like green hydrogen.
> Due to the misguided belief that Russia and its gas can be trusted as a transitional energy source
I find it ironic that the right-leaning people that are pro oil & gas are often also isolationist and nativist in their orientation. Oil and gas are the least sovereign sources of energy and make you dependent on both the local government and foreign nations.
I find it ironic that the right-leaning people that are pro oil & gas are often also isolationist and nativist in their orientation. Oil and gas are the least sovereign sources of energy and make you dependent on both the local government and foreign nations.
Sri Lanka might want to have a word with them.
That is a very dangerous prespective. Every policy has unexpected effects that cannot be foreseen and nobody can be sure that something is totally positive and safe.
It’s pretty good idea not to dump huge quantities of anything into rivers, sea, atmosphere. Is your position that people who want to curb emissions should stop to think about unintended consequences? Maybe we should have done that
earlier when building this system with no accountability for externalities.
Motte and Bailey.
Climate fanaticals want more, much more than "not to dump huge quantities of anything into rivers, sea, atmosphere".
> That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes...
Climate fanaticals want more, much more than "not to dump huge quantities of anything into rivers, sea, atmosphere".
> That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes...
If there was a 50 mile diameter asteroid heading towards earth, I could suggest that the people worried about it have no way to disprove that they're part of a doomsday cult, but doing that would be disingenuous because there's a difference between baseless stone age superstition on the one hand, and beliefs informed by empiricism and the scientific method on the other.
Most people aren't informed by empiricism- they just listen to what the witch doctor in the white robes says.
Climatologists, who are scientists, are not comparable to witch doctors, who are practitioners of stone age superstition. Yes, people outsource some of their thinking, but this is not a bad thing given that it's impossible to critically evaluate everything. Our bandwidth is highly limited, meaning some level of cautious targeted outsourcing actually maximizes the accuracy of our opinions. I would say such opinions are still based on empiricism, ableit via indirection.
That’s a terribly selfish way of thinking. It’s not just about you & your own life but about generations of life to come. We have been given the most amazing planet in the known universe and we’re going to kill millions of years of evolution and diversity because of greed.
Nature has been hitting the reset button every so often, but you know what happens? Evolution as the survivors rise to fill the empty niches and a new diversity eventually replaces the old one. Thing is humans can help that process along by cataloging and planning on how to bring back endangered or even extinct species, reforesting, reintroducing animals to old habitats, etc. Things will be rough for the next few decades, but we'll also have the knowledge and technology to reverse some of it.
The world won't end. It's just gonna get a lot more difficult.
As I'm sitting here reading about what's happening with the Yangtze, the Danube, and the Rhine, the flooding in Pakistan, the greater-than-expected warming in the arctic, and the sudden uptick in methane emissions, I wonder: At what point do we deploy solar geoengineering?
I used to joke that local politicians in Shanghai will eventually resort to geoengineering. And that they won't ask permission from anyone.
In the grand scheme of things, solar geoengineering is cheap. There are many entities in the world that could afford it on their own without coordinating with anyone else. For some of them, it would be cheaper than preparing for the consequences of climate change. And some of those may be willing to take the risk.
In the grand scheme of things, solar geoengineering is cheap. There are many entities in the world that could afford it on their own without coordinating with anyone else. For some of them, it would be cheaper than preparing for the consequences of climate change. And some of those may be willing to take the risk.
At the point where all of the above starts seriously inconveniencing the ultra-rich.
How about geo-engineering? Already being employed in secret government programs.
Never.
What problems do you see?
Aside from the enormous risks.. We see that people are not even willing to limit their own emissions in the long term for their own benefit (and I am not talking about the poor, I am talking about the rich - 90% emissions is caused by top 10% wealthy of all people). How do you imagine then, people actually investing energy to cool the planet on other people's behalf?
The truth is, we always had technological solutions, problem is where you draw the line on a finite planet to avoid overshoot.
It's really like that joke, in a flood, a religious man rejects a neighbor's boat, because he believes the god will save him. Then he rejects a rescue helicopter, again, the god will sure save him. Eventually, he dies, comes to heaven and asks god, why didn't he save him? Well, the god says, I sent the boat and the helicopter..
That's what we do with technology. We have technological solutions (to reduce emissions), we just reject them, because they are below us. Geoengineering is just another prayer.
The truth is, we always had technological solutions, problem is where you draw the line on a finite planet to avoid overshoot.
It's really like that joke, in a flood, a religious man rejects a neighbor's boat, because he believes the god will save him. Then he rejects a rescue helicopter, again, the god will sure save him. Eventually, he dies, comes to heaven and asks god, why didn't he save him? Well, the god says, I sent the boat and the helicopter..
That's what we do with technology. We have technological solutions (to reduce emissions), we just reject them, because they are below us. Geoengineering is just another prayer.
It took a while to scroll to find this. I'm glad someone has read the actual reports.
All of these campaigns aimed at the everyman will do almost nothing to avert climate change. To actually impact it, companies and the ultra wealthy need to be the targets. If every US citizen making under $500,000/year drove an EV, kept their power off most of the day, and ate only vegetables there would not be a perceivable impact on the climate. Yet, we are sold this nonsense by the media who is ostensibly controlled by the very people doing the most damage.
I find it completely insane the idea that the farmer with his diesel truck, or 100,000 farmers with their diesel trucks, are the cause of the problem. The numbers say otherwise. It is not "our" problem, it is their problem. The ultra wealthy and their companies.
All of these campaigns aimed at the everyman will do almost nothing to avert climate change. To actually impact it, companies and the ultra wealthy need to be the targets. If every US citizen making under $500,000/year drove an EV, kept their power off most of the day, and ate only vegetables there would not be a perceivable impact on the climate. Yet, we are sold this nonsense by the media who is ostensibly controlled by the very people doing the most damage.
I find it completely insane the idea that the farmer with his diesel truck, or 100,000 farmers with their diesel trucks, are the cause of the problem. The numbers say otherwise. It is not "our" problem, it is their problem. The ultra wealthy and their companies.
The wealthy, globally and locally, are responsible for most of the emissions but they're doing that by spending money on things that then cause poor people to drive trucks or tractors spewing toxins.
So everyone needs to stop doing the stuff we dont want to happen. Most of it we know is a long term money saver for the poor average joe. They just don't have the funds to invest in that up front.
This is what all the "just transition" stuff is about.
So everyone needs to stop doing the stuff we dont want to happen. Most of it we know is a long term money saver for the poor average joe. They just don't have the funds to invest in that up front.
This is what all the "just transition" stuff is about.
Earth and its systems are too complex and left with too much unknown variables to be confident in messing with them without the danger of creating a feedback loop that makes the matter worse.
Take for example invasive species of plants and animals -- some of them were deliberately spread to non-native habitats in hope to regulate X but are now wrecking havoc in local ecosystems and pushing out native species.
Take for example invasive species of plants and animals -- some of them were deliberately spread to non-native habitats in hope to regulate X but are now wrecking havoc in local ecosystems and pushing out native species.
I don't understand this. If people cared (or perhaps comprehend) complex feedback loops, we wouldn't be in this mess. If the majority of the human population starts suffering, including you and I, we will certainly do whatever we can to stop prevent that suffering, short term. I don't think there's any evidence, from any point in history, that suggests we'll, as a collective species, shun our instincts of self preservation, and die for the unknown of possible future problems.
Let's say India (they seem especially vulnerable) starts having mass heat and starvation, where they're losing significant parts of their population, and decided to slow it, immediately, by launching some solar shields. Do we shoot it down?
I think "never" is ludicrous. Once people start dying, people will demand and plea for something to be done, or heads will roll.
Let's say India (they seem especially vulnerable) starts having mass heat and starvation, where they're losing significant parts of their population, and decided to slow it, immediately, by launching some solar shields. Do we shoot it down?
I think "never" is ludicrous. Once people start dying, people will demand and plea for something to be done, or heads will roll.
It's more like what problems you don't see. The unknown unknowns.
It takes monumental levels of hubris to think we can control the planet's climate, THE chaotic system.
Especially when the proposed solution to the effects of a perturbation to the system (increase in greenhouse gases) is an even bigger perturbation (blocking sunlight).
It's like trying to avoid a tsunami by generating another tsunami in the opposite direction and hoping the waves will cancel out.
It takes monumental levels of hubris to think we can control the planet's climate, THE chaotic system.
Especially when the proposed solution to the effects of a perturbation to the system (increase in greenhouse gases) is an even bigger perturbation (blocking sunlight).
It's like trying to avoid a tsunami by generating another tsunami in the opposite direction and hoping the waves will cancel out.
Well, there's that part where all the major Western governments basically have their head in the sand and think that aiming for gradual changes by 2050 is perfectly fine.
China might go for it, though. They've got that balance of enough top-down authority to actually make big projects happen and the need to continue showing large-scale improvement to the common people to maintain legitimacy.
China might go for it, though. They've got that balance of enough top-down authority to actually make big projects happen and the need to continue showing large-scale improvement to the common people to maintain legitimacy.
I actually think it’s more likely that geo-engineering will be started by wealthy individuals. Think about it: it’s the ultimate form of philantrophy! The ultimate ego boost for those who have it all.
Snowpiercer explored one potential failure mode of geoengineering.
But that's not realistic engineering. Every proposal for a solar shade that I've seen includes a way to remove it. Some are ephemeral, by design.
I got the impression the Snowpiercer situation was chemical, but a solar shade does seem like a better option indeed.
Edit: they used atmospheric aerosol injection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Piercer#Plot
Edit: they used atmospheric aerosol injection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Piercer#Plot
Climate change requires systematic change not enforcing "personal sacrifice". Globalization was touted as a tool to ensure the world will not descend into another world war but in the process it destroyed countless of sustainable, good for climate businesses.
We transport so much goods that could be produced locally thousands of kilometers across the planet literally just because of corporate profits.
We transport so much goods that could be produced locally thousands of kilometers across the planet literally just because of corporate profits.
Global transport isn't really the problem. It's relatively efficient and technically easy to decarbonize.
Shipping things from countries that have natural resource advantages is fine. Shipping things from other countries because they do things that are illegal in your own country (whether that’s labor rights, environmental regulations, lack of democracy, slavery or whatever) is bad.
Shipping things from countries that have natural resource advantages is fine. Shipping things from other countries because they do things that are illegal in your own country (whether that’s labor rights, environmental regulations, lack of democracy, slavery or whatever) is bad.
World war is a necessary evil. A one world government sounds like an incredible way to have an inescapable totalitarian regime. If it isn't in the beginning, it will be in the end. All nations trend towards totalitarianism, almost like clockwork.
My partner and I are looking to move back to NZ and settle down in around 3 years and I found it quite depressing that we need to now consider climate change impact on the city (near and far future) when we decide where to settle down.
Be happy that NZ will have plenty of water even under extreme scenarios.
What's more, the areas that will fare best for precipitation and temperature rise are also the areas that tend to be sparsely populated and have cheap(er) housing. Though those sandflies in the South Island can be vicious.
https://niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resou....
What's more, the areas that will fare best for precipitation and temperature rise are also the areas that tend to be sparsely populated and have cheap(er) housing. Though those sandflies in the South Island can be vicious.
https://niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resou....
What are the main challenges when it comes to climate change?
I can come up with some challenges, but they all do not seem too hard to solve:
Produce food under the new conditions
More roofs and air condition to keep people protected from sun and heat
Move people away from the oceans as those rise
What else?
I can come up with some challenges, but they all do not seem too hard to solve:
Produce food under the new conditions
More roofs and air condition to keep people protected from sun and heat
Move people away from the oceans as those rise
What else?
The IPCC is regularly publishing updates on this:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/o...
Note that so far, politics has led them to be conservative in their predictions (no tipping points for good -- cheap renewables -- or bad) but it still makes economic sense to prevent the impacts.
> The report further identifies two types of limits to adaptation: “hard adaptation limit,” when no amount of money or technology can solve a problem, and “soft adaptation limit,” which means that the required technology or policy intervention will be too costly to realistically implement. Hard limits include irreversible, large-scale changes to the Earth system or ecosystem functions (for example, the loss of glaciers feeding major inland water systems). Soft limits include changes to local climatology. Working Group II notes, for example, at 2⁰C it is expected that some staple crops may reach soft adaptation limits to changes in temperature and precipitation across the tropics, which will make them prohibitively difficult or expensive to grow.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/o...
Note that so far, politics has led them to be conservative in their predictions (no tipping points for good -- cheap renewables -- or bad) but it still makes economic sense to prevent the impacts.
> The report further identifies two types of limits to adaptation: “hard adaptation limit,” when no amount of money or technology can solve a problem, and “soft adaptation limit,” which means that the required technology or policy intervention will be too costly to realistically implement. Hard limits include irreversible, large-scale changes to the Earth system or ecosystem functions (for example, the loss of glaciers feeding major inland water systems). Soft limits include changes to local climatology. Working Group II notes, for example, at 2⁰C it is expected that some staple crops may reach soft adaptation limits to changes in temperature and precipitation across the tropics, which will make them prohibitively difficult or expensive to grow.
> Produce food under the new conditions
This alone is an incredibly difficult problem to solve, as evidenced by the fact that the entire history of our species has been spent trying to solve the food problem.
Only very recently have very wealthy western nations overcome food insecurity for most people, while the rest of the world (and poor people in wealthy nations) are already struggling with food insecurity, without adding more crop failures due to climate change on top. The Haber process was only discovered in 1909!
> Move people away from the oceans as those rise
Given that a very large percentage of the world population lives near the ocean, what makes you think relocating hundreds of millions if not billions of people and their jobs and communities is not a hard problem?
This alone is an incredibly difficult problem to solve, as evidenced by the fact that the entire history of our species has been spent trying to solve the food problem.
Only very recently have very wealthy western nations overcome food insecurity for most people, while the rest of the world (and poor people in wealthy nations) are already struggling with food insecurity, without adding more crop failures due to climate change on top. The Haber process was only discovered in 1909!
> Move people away from the oceans as those rise
Given that a very large percentage of the world population lives near the ocean, what makes you think relocating hundreds of millions if not billions of people and their jobs and communities is not a hard problem?
> Only very recently have very wealthy western nations overcome food insecurity for most people, ...
Yes, and it should be mentioned that they have managed to do so _only_ with the help of basically feeding unimaginable amounts of energy contained in fossil fuels directly to the plants in the form of nitrogen (fixed in the form of Ammonium).
> Given that a very large percentage of the world population lives near the ocean, what makes you think relocating hundreds of millions if not billions of people and their jobs and communities is not a hard problem?
IMO it really isn't that much of a problem. Sea levels will not rise suddenly but gradually. That will put (slowly) increasing economic pressure on coastal areas, which will gradually drive people from there by giving them incentive to move somewhere else.
If there were a flood instead, relocating all the people living on the coast sure would be a huge problem. But the way things are, it will IMO just be one of the minor problems humanity will face.
Yes, and it should be mentioned that they have managed to do so _only_ with the help of basically feeding unimaginable amounts of energy contained in fossil fuels directly to the plants in the form of nitrogen (fixed in the form of Ammonium).
> Given that a very large percentage of the world population lives near the ocean, what makes you think relocating hundreds of millions if not billions of people and their jobs and communities is not a hard problem?
IMO it really isn't that much of a problem. Sea levels will not rise suddenly but gradually. That will put (slowly) increasing economic pressure on coastal areas, which will gradually drive people from there by giving them incentive to move somewhere else.
If there were a flood instead, relocating all the people living on the coast sure would be a huge problem. But the way things are, it will IMO just be one of the minor problems humanity will face.
> Yes, and [artificial ammonia production] should be mentioned
I did mention it, that's what the Haber process produces (and the discovery of the Haber process is what allowed us to produce ammonia on an industrial scale rather than relying on natural guano deposits).
> That will put (slowly) increasing economic pressure on coastal areas, which will gradually drive people from there by giving them incentive to move somewhere else.
Who will they sell their homes to?
I did mention it, that's what the Haber process produces (and the discovery of the Haber process is what allowed us to produce ammonia on an industrial scale rather than relying on natural guano deposits).
> That will put (slowly) increasing economic pressure on coastal areas, which will gradually drive people from there by giving them incentive to move somewhere else.
Who will they sell their homes to?
> I did mention it, that's what the Haber process produce ..
Yes, and I did read it.
I was trying to put emphasis on the huge cost in the form of near endless energy.
Just mentioning the process as if it somehow miraculously solved the problems for all time is misleading, since the world is now facing the challenge to basically stop using this method. Because it wasn't sustainable.
It only worked because it relied on stored energy, which is A, going to be used up some time and B, should be left in the ground because CO2 emissions must be reduced/stopped.
Yes, and I did read it.
I was trying to put emphasis on the huge cost in the form of near endless energy.
Just mentioning the process as if it somehow miraculously solved the problems for all time is misleading, since the world is now facing the challenge to basically stop using this method. Because it wasn't sustainable.
It only worked because it relied on stored energy, which is A, going to be used up some time and B, should be left in the ground because CO2 emissions must be reduced/stopped.
> Who will they sell their homes to?
As with many such large scale problems, the state will probably take care of that by bearing these costs and distributing them among the citizens.
It's not a good way, but it should work.
As with many such large scale problems, the state will probably take care of that by bearing these costs and distributing them among the citizens.
It's not a good way, but it should work.
You don't think that moving billions of people, moving millions of acres of food production (often across borders), and replacing millions of workers' livelihoods would be "hard to solve"?
So many questions. Let's start with the first one:
Do we really need to move billions of people?
We humans couldn't live under current conditions without the tech we built. Why can't we build the tech to cope with new conditions? Put roofs made from solar panels over peoples heads and air conditin below the roofs?
Do we really need to move billions of people?
We humans couldn't live under current conditions without the tech we built. Why can't we build the tech to cope with new conditions? Put roofs made from solar panels over peoples heads and air conditin below the roofs?
I think it's not so much about us adapting to the new climate, obviously we can figure that part out. It seems to be more about our systems adapting fast enough to keep up with the changing climate. How many crops this year were plagued by drought? Were we able to produce enough food? What about livestock, how did they fare? What if those droughts continue to get more frequent and longer?
You forgot to mention how you build the rest of the boat, the part that goes under the solar panel roof.
> a quarter of Bangladesh’s landmass, bound on the south by the northern Indian Ocean, hovers less than seven feet above sea level. And as floods grow increasingly frequent and severe, the 163 million who make their home in Bangladesh, the world’s most populous delta, know little escape from water.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/bangladesh-country-underwater-c...
> a quarter of Bangladesh’s landmass, bound on the south by the northern Indian Ocean, hovers less than seven feet above sea level. And as floods grow increasingly frequent and severe, the 163 million who make their home in Bangladesh, the world’s most populous delta, know little escape from water.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/bangladesh-country-underwater-c...
if you read the article, it talks about the sea level rising and having to relocate a lot of people that live around the coast.
If you read my post, this is the first point it lists.
It's not as if we lack the space to move the people living around the cost elsewhere. When you drop a refrigerator from the sky, the probability to hit someone is basically zero.
It's not as if we lack the space to move the people living around the cost elsewhere. When you drop a refrigerator from the sky, the probability to hit someone is basically zero.
You mean third point?
Sure there's a lot of empty space here, but places like Wellington have very little space left for development, and significant suburbs (Lyall Bay, Seatoun, Petone, Eastbourne) will likely need to have significant properties moved elsewhere, which means out of the current urban areas...
Same goes for Christchurch and Auckland...
Where exactly will new areas be created? It's not impossible, but will people want to do that? Already there are many properties on the south coast of Wellington (Owhiro Bay, Moa Point), which regularly have flood risks at least once a year with strong southerlies and high tides, and people stay there...
Given how bad the availability of property is here, I doubt it will be that easy (although that might be a way: subsidised property in a new suburb if you move?)...
Sure there's a lot of empty space here, but places like Wellington have very little space left for development, and significant suburbs (Lyall Bay, Seatoun, Petone, Eastbourne) will likely need to have significant properties moved elsewhere, which means out of the current urban areas...
Same goes for Christchurch and Auckland...
Where exactly will new areas be created? It's not impossible, but will people want to do that? Already there are many properties on the south coast of Wellington (Owhiro Bay, Moa Point), which regularly have flood risks at least once a year with strong southerlies and high tides, and people stay there...
Given how bad the availability of property is here, I doubt it will be that easy (although that might be a way: subsidised property in a new suburb if you move?)...
[deleted]
- Raise taxes or debt sufficient to pay politicians and their consultant and corporate friends to develop climate change plans which generally involve paying more money to this same friendship group.
- Make slight adjustments to urban and infrastructure planning to accommodate for expected changes, e.g., updating catchment forecasts and flood and tide maps are probably some of the big ones (although the former two are wildly unpredictable at the best of times).
- Make slight adjustments to urban and infrastructure planning to accommodate for expected changes, e.g., updating catchment forecasts and flood and tide maps are probably some of the big ones (although the former two are wildly unpredictable at the best of times).
I think you are massively underestimating the problems. With just 1.1% warming we're starting to see famines, floods, droughts. 1/3 of Pakistan is under water right now. The Glasgow conference failed to "save" 1.5%. This is going to get much, much worse.
Stopping dictators from coming to power when the going gets tough and there are millions of climate refugees from near the equator wanting to migrate to the habitable global north.
Look at what a few million Syrian refugees has done to German and French politics during a period of relative abundance. What do you think will happen if you multiply that number by 100, and add in some economic turmoil and hyperinflation? You get some modern iteration of the Russian Revolution or Nazi Germany. But this time, everyone has nukes.
Look at what a few million Syrian refugees has done to German and French politics during a period of relative abundance. What do you think will happen if you multiply that number by 100, and add in some economic turmoil and hyperinflation? You get some modern iteration of the Russian Revolution or Nazi Germany. But this time, everyone has nukes.
Why would people vote for dictoators because of refugees?
Couldn't they just vote for parties that close the borders?
Couldn't they just vote for parties that close the borders?
The people that want to close the borders tend to be right-wing populists, who tend to hold illiberal and anti-democratic values with a higher frequency. Orban, Le Pen and AfD are a reaction to a few things, but one of those things is a fairly modest number of refugees. If there are 100x as many refugees, and economic collapse, I don't see it likely that the elected politician isn't some kind of populist strongman.
Are you saying there is a flaw in the system of democracy? If a majority of people want a certain decision (in this example closed borders) - why can't they have it without anti-democratic forces coming into play? Why wouldn't there be a democratic party offering to implement it?
Firstly, there are some things that should be disallowed irrespective of majority opinion. Raping people, for example. That's why countries have constitution-type documents that require super majorities to overturn instead of a simple majority.
Secondly, putting aside whether closed borders are in this category of things (I personally happen to believe it is), it unlikely that the economy can crash and refugees can 100x and we can get a right-wing populist who is also pro-democracy and liberal. Right-wing populists have consistently shown that they don't care about democracy -- they care about nation and empire and glory and race, not liberalism and not individuals. In fact, they hate liberalism with a passion. Look at how Orban has undermined the free press in Hungary. Look at how Trump has undermined confidence in US elections. Look at Turkey. And this is when things are prosperous. Look what happened after Russia's post-Soviet economic turmoil. We got Putin who threw away democracy the first chance he got. Hitler's popularity went up from the single digits to about 30% in 1 or 2 years into the Great Depression, mostly driven by the impoverished in rural areas. The Russian Revolution happened immediately after the extremely dire conditions post-WW1, leading the authoritarian Bolsheviks to take power. The CCP took power from the KMT in the context of poverty and humiliation resulting from British then Japanese imperialism (among other causes). It's causal, and it happens again and again.
Secondly, putting aside whether closed borders are in this category of things (I personally happen to believe it is), it unlikely that the economy can crash and refugees can 100x and we can get a right-wing populist who is also pro-democracy and liberal. Right-wing populists have consistently shown that they don't care about democracy -- they care about nation and empire and glory and race, not liberalism and not individuals. In fact, they hate liberalism with a passion. Look at how Orban has undermined the free press in Hungary. Look at how Trump has undermined confidence in US elections. Look at Turkey. And this is when things are prosperous. Look what happened after Russia's post-Soviet economic turmoil. We got Putin who threw away democracy the first chance he got. Hitler's popularity went up from the single digits to about 30% in 1 or 2 years into the Great Depression, mostly driven by the impoverished in rural areas. The Russian Revolution happened immediately after the extremely dire conditions post-WW1, leading the authoritarian Bolsheviks to take power. The CCP took power from the KMT in the context of poverty and humiliation resulting from British then Japanese imperialism (among other causes). It's causal, and it happens again and again.
What about living things other than humans?
Most of this seems sensible. Governments should be spending to prepare for a changed climate, in case global warming is irreversible (which I think is the likely trajectory). Investing totally in net zero by 2050 is not responsible governing.
In the U.K., that means building flood defences for the winter, water storage for the dry summers (avoiding the inevitable cries of NIMBYs like Layla Moran) and possibly investing in AC for hotter summers.
In the U.K., that means building flood defences for the winter, water storage for the dry summers (avoiding the inevitable cries of NIMBYs like Layla Moran) and possibly investing in AC for hotter summers.
Beyond sea level rise, how can you prepare for something unpredictable?
From what I've read things will get more extreme. So potentially more rain, but potentially droughts. Potentially higher temperatures, but potentially lower ones as well.
So how do you avoid spending money to prepare for something that may not happen - in fact, the opposite might happen? Spend billions on new flood control, then faced with a decade long drought you didn't prepare for. There isn't enough money to prepare for every possible scenario.
And how do you distinguish being prepared for natural disasters (which happen regardless of climate change) from preparing specifically for climate change?
I mean California making sure they have enough water is just table stakes. Even without climate change they should be doing that (knowing it's naturally a near-desert environment in the Central Valley).
From what I've read things will get more extreme. So potentially more rain, but potentially droughts. Potentially higher temperatures, but potentially lower ones as well.
So how do you avoid spending money to prepare for something that may not happen - in fact, the opposite might happen? Spend billions on new flood control, then faced with a decade long drought you didn't prepare for. There isn't enough money to prepare for every possible scenario.
And how do you distinguish being prepared for natural disasters (which happen regardless of climate change) from preparing specifically for climate change?
I mean California making sure they have enough water is just table stakes. Even without climate change they should be doing that (knowing it's naturally a near-desert environment in the Central Valley).
> So how do you avoid spending money to prepare for something that may not happen
It is certain that more energy, originally from the sun, will be captured and held out the earth | sea lower atmosphere layers due to the increased insulation effects of increasing greenhouse gases.
This will have significant impact on the global climate cells about the planet, precisely where what will happen is difficult to predict, the general pattern of the kinds of things not so much.
What we can do is reduce the insulating increase by putting less up there, capturing more, etc.
What we can also do is prepare for change, eg here we have been increasing the divrsity of seed varieties for wheat | canola | barley | etc across the board, building a database of tested seeds against temp and humidity variation.
It is certain that more energy, originally from the sun, will be captured and held out the earth | sea lower atmosphere layers due to the increased insulation effects of increasing greenhouse gases.
This will have significant impact on the global climate cells about the planet, precisely where what will happen is difficult to predict, the general pattern of the kinds of things not so much.
What we can do is reduce the insulating increase by putting less up there, capturing more, etc.
What we can also do is prepare for change, eg here we have been increasing the divrsity of seed varieties for wheat | canola | barley | etc across the board, building a database of tested seeds against temp and humidity variation.
It's not unpredictable. The IPCC reports, as well as the climatology departments of most universities around the world, have a fairly detailed understanding of how different areas will be affected. Sea level rise covers all coastal cities; increased severity of hurricanes, increased severity of droughts and rains, permafrost melting, etc.
An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’ has some analysis of which parts of the world are likely to continue to support civilisation.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/htm
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/htm
This isn’t true. Beyond sea level the IPCC report can’t accurately predict the impact of climate change on NZ. That's the difference between "weather" and "climate".
Absolutely false. There are well-understood climate patterns that affect the hydrology and temperatures and for most agriculturally productive places in the world climate scientists have already made predictions for those.
there are a lot of scientists who submitted to IPCC who appear to disagree
> Beyond sea level rise, how can you prepare for something unpredictable?
They're not really. They're just using this as a selling point on many social changes they're making in favor of equity.
They're not really. They're just using this as a selling point on many social changes they're making in favor of equity.
It amazes me that climate change mitigation isn't a bi-partisan issue...
New Zealand is rumoured to be billionaire refugees during climate crisis ,i wonder why new zealand?
[deleted]
Florida hasn't sunk yet....
Yet...
Though getting insurance for one's home in Florida is getting difficult now according to this recent news item so don't have to wait for ocean levels to rise too much.
https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/08/26/an-existential...
This is apparently mostly due to fraud, and state government inaction to address it.
Not directly climate change related, but still not a good sign that they'll deal with climate impacts well.
Not directly climate change related, but still not a good sign that they'll deal with climate impacts well.
Water it seems, is not our friend. Climate change seems mostly to be about water, and how we currently live with it.
The melting of the ice-caps over the next 100 years or whatever will result is rising sea levels. Potentially a rise of hundreds of metres.
The additional energy in the atmosphere leads to heavier rains, and hence more runoff. When that runoff goes through a building we call that flooding.
In other places a lack of rain is leading to water shortage and drought.
Sea level rise is long term, flooding and droughts are here now. In the short term we need to allow water more space to flow. Retreating from the waters edge can be done, and it can be paid for "collectively". It's a relatively small-scale action, and it can happen progressively year on year.
Simple rules to condem areas after say a second flooding would be a start.
Retreating from a 100m sea level rise is too large a scale to contemplate. Sure it'll happen "slowly" but the number of people involved is a sizeable fraction of all humanity.
Inland small towns everywhere should be considering planning and zoning that would happen if they grew by a million people. New cities, on the new waters edge, will be created from nothing.
At this point we can stretch out the time line, but I think the course is set. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle now.
But I'm confident we will adapt. This isn't an extinction event. Humans adapt better than anything else.
The melting of the ice-caps over the next 100 years or whatever will result is rising sea levels. Potentially a rise of hundreds of metres.
The additional energy in the atmosphere leads to heavier rains, and hence more runoff. When that runoff goes through a building we call that flooding.
In other places a lack of rain is leading to water shortage and drought.
Sea level rise is long term, flooding and droughts are here now. In the short term we need to allow water more space to flow. Retreating from the waters edge can be done, and it can be paid for "collectively". It's a relatively small-scale action, and it can happen progressively year on year.
Simple rules to condem areas after say a second flooding would be a start.
Retreating from a 100m sea level rise is too large a scale to contemplate. Sure it'll happen "slowly" but the number of people involved is a sizeable fraction of all humanity.
Inland small towns everywhere should be considering planning and zoning that would happen if they grew by a million people. New cities, on the new waters edge, will be created from nothing.
At this point we can stretch out the time line, but I think the course is set. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle now.
But I'm confident we will adapt. This isn't an extinction event. Humans adapt better than anything else.
> The melting of the ice-caps over the next 100 years or whatever will result is rising sea levels. Potentially a rise of hundreds of metres.
If literally all the ice on the planet melted and ran into the ocean the ocean would only rise 70 meters [0] (so 100s of meters is genuinely physically impossible).
The current WORST case scenarios as modeled by the IPCC would put us on track for <4 meters of rise by 2300, 280 years from now [1]
[0] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-...
[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating...
If literally all the ice on the planet melted and ran into the ocean the ocean would only rise 70 meters [0] (so 100s of meters is genuinely physically impossible).
The current WORST case scenarios as modeled by the IPCC would put us on track for <4 meters of rise by 2300, 280 years from now [1]
[0] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-...
[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating...
Those are just the worst case scenarios that bureaucrats will put their name to.
If the east Antarctic ice shelf goes we’re looking at 50 meters.
If the east Antarctic ice shelf goes we’re looking at 50 meters.
So ignore nasa, ignore the international panel on climate change… you got this one figured out better than our best scientists? Sorry that sounds just as bad as the most extreme climate deniers.
Exactly, instead of treating climate change as an apocalyptic event, the entire world need to band together and tackle this unique challenge. We can enable this by spreading education and awareness, and do our part to slow down climate change.
Yes. Normalize caring.
Reading comments across the internet, I get the distinct impression that people would prefer to see the world completely collapse vs. accept that the next couple hundred years will be tough but survivable (as a species), requiring collective sacrifice. I suppose the former outcome is aesthetically "cleaner" or is somehow pleasingly poetic. Perhaps it's just fashionable to care even less than your friends.
No. Our past collective actions will cost the lives of millions, perhaps billions of people in the coming centuries. But this isn't justification for giving up. Get involved. Do not go silently.
Here's a possibly encouraging data point. When I announced I'd be leaving my 9-year tenure as a dev at a (non-climate-related) software company to go back to school so I will more effectively contribute to the climate effort, I got universal encouragement. From within the company as well as from outside. People _do_ care.
Reading comments across the internet, I get the distinct impression that people would prefer to see the world completely collapse vs. accept that the next couple hundred years will be tough but survivable (as a species), requiring collective sacrifice. I suppose the former outcome is aesthetically "cleaner" or is somehow pleasingly poetic. Perhaps it's just fashionable to care even less than your friends.
No. Our past collective actions will cost the lives of millions, perhaps billions of people in the coming centuries. But this isn't justification for giving up. Get involved. Do not go silently.
Here's a possibly encouraging data point. When I announced I'd be leaving my 9-year tenure as a dev at a (non-climate-related) software company to go back to school so I will more effectively contribute to the climate effort, I got universal encouragement. From within the company as well as from outside. People _do_ care.
Everyone "cares" to some degree, as long as their own habits and life-style are not affected.
It costs me nothing to congratulate you on your effort, and I'm glad you're doing something - that's less responsibility on me.
I think everyone else should get an EV or ride a bicycle, thus leaving me to drive my 8 cylinder muscle car.
OK, I'm being cynical for effect, but I see this hypocrisy all day long. "I'm all for your change, as long as the change doesn't affect me."
We should, but won't, collectively act on climate. Because the rich countries have too much to lose. And the rich and powerful in those countries have too much to lose.
In the US, one of the biggest contributers to climate change, it has become a political issue. There's a reason the US exited the Paris Accords.
To be clear, I think we should act, individually and collectively. I applaud you for setting an example. But I dont believe we _will_ act. The coming change is inevitable.
It costs me nothing to congratulate you on your effort, and I'm glad you're doing something - that's less responsibility on me.
I think everyone else should get an EV or ride a bicycle, thus leaving me to drive my 8 cylinder muscle car.
OK, I'm being cynical for effect, but I see this hypocrisy all day long. "I'm all for your change, as long as the change doesn't affect me."
We should, but won't, collectively act on climate. Because the rich countries have too much to lose. And the rich and powerful in those countries have too much to lose.
In the US, one of the biggest contributers to climate change, it has become a political issue. There's a reason the US exited the Paris Accords.
To be clear, I think we should act, individually and collectively. I applaud you for setting an example. But I dont believe we _will_ act. The coming change is inevitable.
> Exactly, instead of treating climate change as an apocalyptic event, the entire world need to band together and tackle this unique challenge
The same could be said about the pandemic we just went through, and it appears many are simply incapable of banding together.
The same could be said about the pandemic we just went through, and it appears many are simply incapable of banding together.
Yeah.. unfortunately we still fight about some piece of land and who should rule over it: one corrupt country or another corrupt country.
It will not work.
But nevertheless, I agee, we must stop pretending that life will end and we must stop run around like headless chicken pretending we COULD stop it IF. We wont stop it, we might slow it down, but it is already here and it will hit us harder as nobody is going to sacrifice his wealth for it. We must stop finding solutions for how to deal with it.
It will not work.
But nevertheless, I agee, we must stop pretending that life will end and we must stop run around like headless chicken pretending we COULD stop it IF. We wont stop it, we might slow it down, but it is already here and it will hit us harder as nobody is going to sacrifice his wealth for it. We must stop finding solutions for how to deal with it.
We can absolutely stop it. But it requires a geo-engineering approach that still is too much of a taboo. Solar radiation management gives us a “pause” button that buys us time to get our shot together. Iron fertilization is another approach. Geo-engineering does not take trillions of dollars. It’s well within reach of a single billionaire for the case solar irradiation and of a dedicated group of millionaires for iron fertilization.
The problem with geo engineering is that we can't beta test it on a planetary scale, and if it goes wrong / has side effects, there's no planet B.
The pointless power struggles will continue as they always have. Of course, this does not absolve us of the responsibility to help find a solution or at the very least support those who do so.
When do you think Barack Obama will have to move to higher ground? He only bought his massively expensive sea front property recently...
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/a30169...
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/a30169...
Even if that property were completely flooded tomorrow, he could easily afford a twice as expensive one on higher ground. Their book deal alone can pay for six of those. So not sure what your point is. That rich people don’t need to care? That much is obvious.
We're currently under a Labour majority (though James Shaw - the environment minister is Green).
There's a bit of a swing back toward National, hobbled in a very large part by their own incompetence, but this will go nowhere if they get back into power.
As an example of their attitudes, last time they were in it was found that basically every body of water in the country had pollution levels in excess of defined quality standards.
Their solution was to change the standards (I'm not sure if the subsequent backlash changed their minds) so that the water was no longer polluted (by definition).
Am I suggesting that we do nothing? No, but unless there's buy in from across the political spectrum (there won't be) I struggle to see how this can acheive anything.