Humans Can Survive Underwater(project-syndicate.org)
project-syndicate.org
Humans Can Survive Underwater
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rising-sea-levels-media-alarmism-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-11
78 comments
The article points to a specific instance in which, it argues, the NYT has misled on climate change. Are you disputing that instance? Or are you okay with the NYT misleading if you think it's for a good cause?
I think this is where a lot of the pushback regarding climate change comes from. Saying "Southern Vietname will be underwater" is not the same as saying "Southern Vietnam will be below sea level". That kind of jump, when it happens over and over again, only results in people mistrusting the media (and, by proxy, "scientists").
> Building dykes to product numerous coastal areas may well be a good answer, but in aggregate that is an absolutely massive capital project. Media reports will obviously need to be part of that since people will need to understand why their taxes are going up and why the government is taking their land.
I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed. I think I'm usually on Lomborg's side: I expect that people will solve these problems (rising sea levels) in fits and starts, as people's lives become more and more affected. I suspect that any other approach isn't politically feasible (and is also, perhaps, undesirable). Once you acknowledge this perspective, quotes like "the real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty" start to make more sense.
I understand this perspective is dissatisfying to many people, especially scientifically-minded, highly educated people. But I don't see any way around it.
I think this is where a lot of the pushback regarding climate change comes from. Saying "Southern Vietname will be underwater" is not the same as saying "Southern Vietnam will be below sea level". That kind of jump, when it happens over and over again, only results in people mistrusting the media (and, by proxy, "scientists").
> Building dykes to product numerous coastal areas may well be a good answer, but in aggregate that is an absolutely massive capital project. Media reports will obviously need to be part of that since people will need to understand why their taxes are going up and why the government is taking their land.
I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed. I think I'm usually on Lomborg's side: I expect that people will solve these problems (rising sea levels) in fits and starts, as people's lives become more and more affected. I suspect that any other approach isn't politically feasible (and is also, perhaps, undesirable). Once you acknowledge this perspective, quotes like "the real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty" start to make more sense.
I understand this perspective is dissatisfying to many people, especially scientifically-minded, highly educated people. But I don't see any way around it.
Well, that times article actually does point out that building seawalls and other barriers is the way to protect the areas that will be below sea level, so Lomborg and the Times seems to share a lot of common ground on this.
> I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed.
No. I don't care whether there's a top-down or bottom up solution.
My point talking about taxes and land was actually about the importance of the media in informing people about the problem. I only mentioned taxes and eminent domain because that's how large capital project usually work. If there's a bottom up way that will get the job done better, I'm all for it.
Point is, the media is still important for informing people. If they don't understand what's going on they won't have any reason to do anything. No matter how it's done, it's going to require large amounts of resources and people aren't going to expend them without a reason.
> I understand this perspective is dissatisfying...
I wouldn't say dissatisfying. It's just a meaningless approach. We have been and continue to work to eliminate poverty and I fully agree we should keep doing so. Great.
Now let's move on: how will we deal with the rising water levels around the globe? If it's build barriers, then how will that work? E.g., what will it cost? Who will do it? When do they need to start? Are there alternatives that may be cheaper or better?
> I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed.
No. I don't care whether there's a top-down or bottom up solution.
My point talking about taxes and land was actually about the importance of the media in informing people about the problem. I only mentioned taxes and eminent domain because that's how large capital project usually work. If there's a bottom up way that will get the job done better, I'm all for it.
Point is, the media is still important for informing people. If they don't understand what's going on they won't have any reason to do anything. No matter how it's done, it's going to require large amounts of resources and people aren't going to expend them without a reason.
> I understand this perspective is dissatisfying...
I wouldn't say dissatisfying. It's just a meaningless approach. We have been and continue to work to eliminate poverty and I fully agree we should keep doing so. Great.
Now let's move on: how will we deal with the rising water levels around the globe? If it's build barriers, then how will that work? E.g., what will it cost? Who will do it? When do they need to start? Are there alternatives that may be cheaper or better?
>He admits climate change is real and we need to do something about it... but the main problem is the media, which is trying to claim climate change is real and we need to do something about it, but they are too scary about it.
My understanding of it is a bit different. He disagrees with the impact of climate change as described by mass media. He also disagrees with how the problem should be addressed.
In my opinion there is definitely a lot of hyperbole in describing climate change consequences as well as talking about what can be done to deal with it.
One example is the "green new deal" proposed by few US senators. It aims to amongst other things replace all internal combustion cars in US, replace _all_ power generation with renewables and to make _all_ buildings in US net zero emissions in next 12 years. This is clearly impossible, but it goes on, one of the many goals for those 12 years in addition to replacing all the vehicles and upgrading all buildings in US is "jobs with guaranteed living wage provided to everyone by the federal government". There are other things in there (single payer healthcare etc) that could be achieved, but by lumping them into one document with impossibilities authors ensure none of them will actually be achieved.
Bear in mind this is not a wish list, or some sort of statement of direction. That would be fine. It is fairly normal to aim high when setting overall strategies, but this proposal is something that would be put into law and would be expected to be fulfilled in 100%. If this is not the best example of applied climate change hysteria I don't know what is.
My understanding of it is a bit different. He disagrees with the impact of climate change as described by mass media. He also disagrees with how the problem should be addressed.
In my opinion there is definitely a lot of hyperbole in describing climate change consequences as well as talking about what can be done to deal with it.
One example is the "green new deal" proposed by few US senators. It aims to amongst other things replace all internal combustion cars in US, replace _all_ power generation with renewables and to make _all_ buildings in US net zero emissions in next 12 years. This is clearly impossible, but it goes on, one of the many goals for those 12 years in addition to replacing all the vehicles and upgrading all buildings in US is "jobs with guaranteed living wage provided to everyone by the federal government". There are other things in there (single payer healthcare etc) that could be achieved, but by lumping them into one document with impossibilities authors ensure none of them will actually be achieved.
Bear in mind this is not a wish list, or some sort of statement of direction. That would be fine. It is fairly normal to aim high when setting overall strategies, but this proposal is something that would be put into law and would be expected to be fulfilled in 100%. If this is not the best example of applied climate change hysteria I don't know what is.
I guess there are different "green new deal"s floating around?
The one AOC famously supports, which I think is what people are usually referring to these days, doesn't have some of the hard provisions you're talking about.
Here's a nice rundown if you're interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-act...
Also, it is actually an aspirational statement of direction. It's just a resolution and doesn't, e.g, change any laws or allocate any funds, etc. So I think you've got some bad information about the fundamentals of it.
(BTW, I'm not myself a supporter of the green new deal. I agree with most of the goals, but it's a marketing effort, not a plan. As such, I think is going to fail and will make it less likely the goals will be achieves or cause them to be achieved less well.)
The one AOC famously supports, which I think is what people are usually referring to these days, doesn't have some of the hard provisions you're talking about.
Here's a nice rundown if you're interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-act...
Also, it is actually an aspirational statement of direction. It's just a resolution and doesn't, e.g, change any laws or allocate any funds, etc. So I think you've got some bad information about the fundamentals of it.
(BTW, I'm not myself a supporter of the green new deal. I agree with most of the goals, but it's a marketing effort, not a plan. As such, I think is going to fail and will make it less likely the goals will be achieves or cause them to be achieved less well.)
Indeed. It's true that large parts of the Netherlands are below sea level. The reason we're safe here now is because a catastrophic storm in the 50's killed a lot of people and the government of this rich nation decided to invest in a gigantic public works project to protect the population.
The Deltaworks project is pretty incredible (there's a great museum here all about it). But it certainly wasn't cheap or easy.
"Though officially completed in 1997 at the cost of $7 billion, the Netherlands continues to add infrastructure to the Delta works as needed. It is estimated that it will continue to need construction to protect the area against the rising water levels caused by global warming." [1]
The Dutch public infrastructure department, the Rijkswaterstaat, is called the "Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management". Water management is a huge continuing challenge.
[1] http://www.unmuseum.org/7wonders/zunderzee.htm
[2] https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/english
The Deltaworks project is pretty incredible (there's a great museum here all about it). But it certainly wasn't cheap or easy.
"Though officially completed in 1997 at the cost of $7 billion, the Netherlands continues to add infrastructure to the Delta works as needed. It is estimated that it will continue to need construction to protect the area against the rising water levels caused by global warming." [1]
The Dutch public infrastructure department, the Rijkswaterstaat, is called the "Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management". Water management is a huge continuing challenge.
[1] http://www.unmuseum.org/7wonders/zunderzee.htm
[2] https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/english
This work is also highly specific to the Netherlands.
It also have a really negative impact on the environment that now needs (and starts) to be addressed.
The goal of this project was to address flooding (and is impressive in this regard), but not to solve any environmental issue and even less to address all the repercussions of global warming.
Where the point of the guy who wrote this article falls even shorter than it already is, Delta Works needs massive funding to address sea water rise caused by Global Warming as it currently can't handle current predicted scenarios.
The goal of this project was to address flooding (and is impressive in this regard), but not to solve any environmental issue and even less to address all the repercussions of global warming.
Where the point of the guy who wrote this article falls even shorter than it already is, Delta Works needs massive funding to address sea water rise caused by Global Warming as it currently can't handle current predicted scenarios.
Since I just did the math:
Spending was up to $13 billion in 2013. Based on that, securing all the coast lines of the world to that level will cost over $10 trillion.
And I'm pretty sure by 2050 we will have spend a lot more on updating & maintaining the delta works.
Spending was up to $13 billion in 2013. Based on that, securing all the coast lines of the world to that level will cost over $10 trillion.
And I'm pretty sure by 2050 we will have spend a lot more on updating & maintaining the delta works.
You don't need to secure all the coast lines. Only the parts that are worth saving.
I wonder how much concrete a 10 trillion dollar levy solution will use, and how much that concrete will increase global warming.
Was that 13 billion per year or in total?
So I looked it up, it is 13 billion in total or 1.4% of the yearly GDP of the Netherlands. That seems rather affordable to me.
So I looked it up, it is 13 billion in total or 1.4% of the yearly GDP of the Netherlands. That seems rather affordable to me.
I agree with your points, but I admit I also suffer confusion regarding climate change. I agree it's real, I'm willing to do some things about it, but I'm not willing to go crazy.
I look at https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=29330...
and I see that 8.4 t CO2 is about average for EU citizens and rough estimate would cost easily less than $300 USD per citizen, sorry for mixing regional numbers.
If this is accurate, then it seems the cost of doing eliminating CO2 globally equals around 6billion people * $300. $1.8 trillion dollars, that feels like an absurdly low number.
I look at https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=29330...
and I see that 8.4 t CO2 is about average for EU citizens and rough estimate would cost easily less than $300 USD per citizen, sorry for mixing regional numbers.
If this is accurate, then it seems the cost of doing eliminating CO2 globally equals around 6billion people * $300. $1.8 trillion dollars, that feels like an absurdly low number.
That's a couple of Iraq wars. Which sounds .. about right for the total mobilization of half a million troops for a decade or two plus several times that number of support and manufacture personnel at home?
Imagine mobilizing that level of support against climate change.
Imagine mobilizing that level of support against climate change.
That's actually a very cool way of imagining it. I'll save that concept for future use. Thank you.
Go crazy. You should be willing to spend approx 100% of your capital in any form for a thing called "survival of human civilization".
Your money means nothing without other humans to spend it with.
Your money means nothing without other humans to spend it with.
>You should be willing to spend approx 100% of your capital in any form for a thing called "survival of human civilization"
This is ridiculous.
This is ridiculous.
I understand your point, but we need a healthy, functioning global economy to have the resources to tackle global-scale problems.
Going crazy, whatever that means, is going to fail because it won't be possible to sustain efforts as the economy shrinks.
What we actually want to do is to pay a relatively tiny cost now to avoid a much larger cost later.
Going crazy, whatever that means, is going to fail because it won't be possible to sustain efforts as the economy shrinks.
What we actually want to do is to pay a relatively tiny cost now to avoid a much larger cost later.
Let me know when you arrive at hard numbers for carbon sequestration tech.
OTOH, one could consider revamping entirely wasteful entirely stupidly designed industrial processes in favor of ones that don't put our entire civilization at risk.
There will be no markets if civilization collapses.
OTOH, one could consider revamping entirely wasteful entirely stupidly designed industrial processes in favor of ones that don't put our entire civilization at risk.
There will be no markets if civilization collapses.
I believe the point of the "media problem" lies in your response, as well. While I agree, I would use the less judgemental adjectives "inefficient" & "archaic".
Edit: removed my own judgement.
Edit: removed my own judgement.
> He also drops this doozy: "The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty..."
> Oh, OK, so it's that's simple then. /s
Cheap fossil fuels since the 1800s are the major driver of all the exponential growth assumptions in economic models. That and improved technology; but the technology all required cheap energy. "Mine more fossil fuels and try to power through" is a strategy that could work. I don't think it will because I doubt we have enough fossil fuels (I'm a peak-oil-ist at heart) but the idea isn't so crazy that it can't be talked about.
It is a pretty fair thing to point out that focusing on cheap and abundant prosperity might be a better strategy than direct mitigation. I enjoy bringing up France, which has a pretty reasonable approximation of a carbon free electricity grid for military reasons; whereas the German Energiewende (bringing in solar and wind) has so far failed to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions and I think they have some sort of gas pipeline to Russia in the works.
> Oh, OK, so it's that's simple then. /s
Cheap fossil fuels since the 1800s are the major driver of all the exponential growth assumptions in economic models. That and improved technology; but the technology all required cheap energy. "Mine more fossil fuels and try to power through" is a strategy that could work. I don't think it will because I doubt we have enough fossil fuels (I'm a peak-oil-ist at heart) but the idea isn't so crazy that it can't be talked about.
It is a pretty fair thing to point out that focusing on cheap and abundant prosperity might be a better strategy than direct mitigation. I enjoy bringing up France, which has a pretty reasonable approximation of a carbon free electricity grid for military reasons; whereas the German Energiewende (bringing in solar and wind) has so far failed to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions and I think they have some sort of gas pipeline to Russia in the works.
I certainly like the idea of focusing on abundant prosperity.
But...
(1) How? It's not like people haven't been trying to rid the world of poverty all along. It's useless to suggest this without better solutions than have/are already being attempted.
(2) How does that solve the problems around climate change? The gap in the logic here is immense.
This just changes the subject away from climate change to something else.
But...
(1) How? It's not like people haven't been trying to rid the world of poverty all along. It's useless to suggest this without better solutions than have/are already being attempted.
(2) How does that solve the problems around climate change? The gap in the logic here is immense.
This just changes the subject away from climate change to something else.
(1) Keep doing what we are doing. The current approach is working very well.
(2) Wealthy people can cope with climate change; it is the poor people who will suffer. Reducing the number of poor people is an effective way of reducing the overall suffering.
> This just changes the subject away from climate change to something else.
I was quite explicit about that - the France v Germany example is a great example for saying that pro-environmental strategies have actually not had a great record for making emissions drop.
(2) Wealthy people can cope with climate change; it is the poor people who will suffer. Reducing the number of poor people is an effective way of reducing the overall suffering.
> This just changes the subject away from climate change to something else.
I was quite explicit about that - the France v Germany example is a great example for saying that pro-environmental strategies have actually not had a great record for making emissions drop.
"but in aggregate that is an absolutely massive capital project"
Some people think that the damage to the natural world from climate change cannot be measured in financial terms...
...but if you choose to talk about costs that can be measured, what makes you think the cost of adjusting to climate change is comparable to or more than the cost of preventing it?
A long time ago, I wanted to put numbers on the externalities of a gallon of gasoline, and so I looked up an estimate of the costs of global warming (in 50-100 years) from the Natural Resources Defense Council. The amount was on the order of $3-6 per gallon. If you make the US and Venezuela pay European gas prices, it's not going to stop climate change.
Of course, in 50 years, things could be much worse than expected. But the expectations of non-deniers are what they are, so it seem necessary to engage with the question of, what do we do if internalizing the costs is not enough to change the trajectory? And what should we do?
Some people think that the damage to the natural world from climate change cannot be measured in financial terms...
...but if you choose to talk about costs that can be measured, what makes you think the cost of adjusting to climate change is comparable to or more than the cost of preventing it?
A long time ago, I wanted to put numbers on the externalities of a gallon of gasoline, and so I looked up an estimate of the costs of global warming (in 50-100 years) from the Natural Resources Defense Council. The amount was on the order of $3-6 per gallon. If you make the US and Venezuela pay European gas prices, it's not going to stop climate change.
Of course, in 50 years, things could be much worse than expected. But the expectations of non-deniers are what they are, so it seem necessary to engage with the question of, what do we do if internalizing the costs is not enough to change the trajectory? And what should we do?
> but in aggregate that is an absolutely massive capital project.
Loke the marshal plan. It will create large amounts of wealth. Any time of upheaval is also a good time for wealth redistribution. All on all it might be a good thing.
Loke the marshal plan. It will create large amounts of wealth. Any time of upheaval is also a good time for wealth redistribution. All on all it might be a good thing.
I thought it was a great article. Just because we need to do something about it doesn't mean we should let the facts be distorted. Showing a map that has most of South Vietnam under water in 2050 suggests something totally different than what this article points out to be the truth.
The answer is so often "people are bad and need to radically change." The reality is that people are good and we are only capable of incremental change. This article helps show why that is likely to turn out better than alarmists claim.
The answer is so often "people are bad and need to radically change." The reality is that people are good and we are only capable of incremental change. This article helps show why that is likely to turn out better than alarmists claim.
This article is disinformation.
A singular map and strawman-premise do not undermine millions of human hours of climate science, core samples, troves of data, etc. You believe this nonsense at our mutual peril.
The climate crisis WILL utterly destroy human civilization through an ever reducing funnel, an ever tightening noose, and we are currently in the last phase of determining the height of that curves trajectory.
There is nothing "too extreme" to attempt at this point in time. We should be prepared to spend up to 100% of our resources in fighting this existential threat. Certainly giving up fossil fuels is not "too extreme". They were due to exit-stage-left decades ago.
We have the tech, let's make it happen.
And for heavens sake, enough of this fake "moderate" fossil fuel drivel.
A singular map and strawman-premise do not undermine millions of human hours of climate science, core samples, troves of data, etc. You believe this nonsense at our mutual peril.
The climate crisis WILL utterly destroy human civilization through an ever reducing funnel, an ever tightening noose, and we are currently in the last phase of determining the height of that curves trajectory.
There is nothing "too extreme" to attempt at this point in time. We should be prepared to spend up to 100% of our resources in fighting this existential threat. Certainly giving up fossil fuels is not "too extreme". They were due to exit-stage-left decades ago.
We have the tech, let's make it happen.
And for heavens sake, enough of this fake "moderate" fossil fuel drivel.
> The climate crisis WILL utterly destroy human civilization through an ever reducing funnel, an ever tightening noose, and we are currently in the last phase of determining the height of that curves trajectory.
> There is nothing "too extreme" to attempt at this point in time. We should be prepared to spend up to 100% of our resources in fighting this existential threat. Certainly giving up fossil fuels is not "too extreme". They were due to exit-stage-left decades ago.
Ew. I did the sustainability minor with my chem e degree - so I understand the importance of action on climate change.
People like you with the hysterics and dramatic statements make everyone else roll their eyes and remember all the doomsaying articles they've been reading forever.
I think you should just leave this to the adults.
> There is nothing "too extreme" to attempt at this point in time. We should be prepared to spend up to 100% of our resources in fighting this existential threat. Certainly giving up fossil fuels is not "too extreme". They were due to exit-stage-left decades ago.
Ew. I did the sustainability minor with my chem e degree - so I understand the importance of action on climate change.
People like you with the hysterics and dramatic statements make everyone else roll their eyes and remember all the doomsaying articles they've been reading forever.
I think you should just leave this to the adults.
I just don't understand this thinking. The sea levels 8000 years ago allowed people to walk from the Netherlands to England. Climate change is consistent. Yes, humans are causing it this time and we should try to stabilize the climate. But..
>There is nothing "too extreme" to attempt at this point in time
No, this is not the apocalypse. Aren't you concerned that an even more extreme version of yourself would do something very, very bad to many, many people for the sake of the cause? Extremism is bad.
>There is nothing "too extreme" to attempt at this point in time
No, this is not the apocalypse. Aren't you concerned that an even more extreme version of yourself would do something very, very bad to many, many people for the sake of the cause? Extremism is bad.
8000 years ago there weren't large cities with dozens of millions of people living in each one, many of them right on the coast. Humanity didn't need to grow enough food to feed billions of people. There was no potential for large-scale modern warfare that can kill hundreds of million of people. We didn't depend on a wide array of advanced technologies and infrastructure -- which can be damaged, uprooted, or destroyed -- to support a relatively comfortable lifestyle for most people in developed countries.
Incredibly rapid climate change has a much different impact now that it would have 8000 years ago. By the way, the science is pretty clear that then climate change happening today is far more rapid than anything that has happened in recent geologic history.
I agree that spending 100% of our resources doesn't look to be necessary. But 5% or 10%? If this is what the science and engineering analysis tells us we should probably l do, then that seems like a rather responsible and beneficial course of action, given the known risks and the potential unknown unknowns.
Incredibly rapid climate change has a much different impact now that it would have 8000 years ago. By the way, the science is pretty clear that then climate change happening today is far more rapid than anything that has happened in recent geologic history.
I agree that spending 100% of our resources doesn't look to be necessary. But 5% or 10%? If this is what the science and engineering analysis tells us we should probably l do, then that seems like a rather responsible and beneficial course of action, given the known risks and the potential unknown unknowns.
If I read this correctly he thinks that reducing emissions is too expensive but everything else like increased cost through extreme weather or building dams to protect areas below sea level is totally affordable. I am not sure I agree with that.
But this is how things will probably work out. I don’t believe we will make any meaningful reduction in emissions over the next decades so we will deal with the consequences.
But this is how things will probably work out. I don’t believe we will make any meaningful reduction in emissions over the next decades so we will deal with the consequences.
My reading is different:
* Paper says, sea level will rise, with many areas vulnerable
* Newspaper exaggerates to say, "OMG people will be at the bottom of the sea"
* Article says, well this one bit of global warming we can deal with, as we always did. Dikes will be built, drainage added, and it's all kinda cheap
I don't think they argue against combating climate change.
Another way to put it: let's worry first about the climate change issues we cannot mitigate.
I don't think they argue against combating climate change.
Another way to put it: let's worry first about the climate change issues we cannot mitigate.
> Dikes will be built
* Venice entered the chat *
For reference:
Dikes are not cheap to build and maintain, securing the dutch coasts cost ran up to $13 billion in 2013. That cover about 700km of coast lines & river sides.
Not sure how many kilometers of dikes will be needed, but based on http://world.bymap.org/Coastlines.html even covering 10% of the coast lines will cost more about $1 trillion.
* Venice entered the chat *
For reference:
Dikes are not cheap to build and maintain, securing the dutch coasts cost ran up to $13 billion in 2013. That cover about 700km of coast lines & river sides.
Not sure how many kilometers of dikes will be needed, but based on http://world.bymap.org/Coastlines.html even covering 10% of the coast lines will cost more about $1 trillion.
It’s even worse than that. The land he’s proposing to secure with dikes includes the land area of all of the island nations in the world. None of those nations can afford that. There’s a very subtle racism at play in saying “look the dutch did it so it must be easy.“ The reality is that a lot of poor island nations are going to be destroyed by the actions of a few wealthy nations, and that isn’t the story you hear often. We will lose a ton of arable land. And much of the biodiversity we cherish today will be extinct. There are a lot of children yet to be born to whom we will owe an apology for so thoroughly wrecking the planet.
Which would have been a good article, but that's definitely not all the article was saying, since the author was clearly arguing against CO2-emission reduction strategies (see the very opening paragraph).
Are you referring to this bit: "[...] push policymakers toward excessively expensive measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty and protect them with simple infrastructure. [...]"?
I think there is a point to be made. I'm no climate change denier. But with mitigating the effects of climate change, we are trading an up-front cost today against a benefit in the future. Both the up-front cost and the future benefit must be fairly estimated, as much as we can.
Claims like "We must cut carbon emissions to 0 or South Vietnam will be eradicated" justify a very different level, or at least destination of spending than saying "South Vietnam will need [international help] to build extensive anti-flood infrastructure". Potentially at least, I don't know the numbers.
I think there is a point to be made. I'm no climate change denier. But with mitigating the effects of climate change, we are trading an up-front cost today against a benefit in the future. Both the up-front cost and the future benefit must be fairly estimated, as much as we can.
Claims like "We must cut carbon emissions to 0 or South Vietnam will be eradicated" justify a very different level, or at least destination of spending than saying "South Vietnam will need [international help] to build extensive anti-flood infrastructure". Potentially at least, I don't know the numbers.
Anti-flood infrastructure, and water supply infrastructure including desalination plus cleaning, and rework their farming practices completely, likely reduce no longer available seafood intake, and expand power grid to supply additional power to air conditioning... And more. Mind you, poor will be hit first and hardest.
It's the tip of the (soon no longer extant) iceberg. Flooding is the relatively easy part. Water, food and power are hard.
It's the tip of the (soon no longer extant) iceberg. Flooding is the relatively easy part. Water, food and power are hard.
Game Theory can bring some understanding here: the situation is similar to the Prisoner's dilemma [1]. If no one reduces emissions, everyone will suffer high costs. If everyone reduces emissions, no additional costs appear. But if everyone but you reduces emissions, your single decision doesn't change the outcome that much - so the optimal strategy is not to reduce emissions and hope others still do.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
The prisoner’s dilemma isn’t a good fit here.
The problem is, it assumes the prisoners can’t talk to each other and don’t have an ongoing relationship beyond the one transaction.
In fact, in general, social issues — from the personal level in up to global level - rarely, if ever, restrict he flow of information like that.”
The problem is, it assumes the prisoners can’t talk to each other and don’t have an ongoing relationship beyond the one transaction.
In fact, in general, social issues — from the personal level in up to global level - rarely, if ever, restrict he flow of information like that.”
Yes, the correct game theory analogy would be the classic "tragedy of the commons" where each player's behavior places a small cost on everyone but produces a larger benefit for themselves. When every player chooses to over utilize the commons, overall rewards decrease significantly.
Another option is to continue producing fossil fuels for the world markets, and using the revenue to protect yourself from the disaster you helped create.
This model is fairly popular with Tories in Canada.
This model is fairly popular with Tories in Canada.
The title should be rich humans can survive underwater.
Yes we have the capacity to run engineering programs that would halt the rising sea levels, we can build huge dykes, perform land reclamation, pump water out and even use the rising sea levels for energy generation.
And while we can save Manhattan and perhaps even venice this won't help Bangladesh and other poor regions which are at risk of being flooded by the rising seas destroying not only their homes but also their ecology putting their limited food supply at greater risk.
And that is a problem a distbalized Bangladesh and other poor(er) countries in South East Asia would destabilize the more established nations like India, China and Pakistan all 3 of which are nuclear powers.
A destabilized middle east and africa would spill out into Europe, a destabilized South America would spill into North America.
You can't rely on local solutions for a global crisis if you want to maintain the same quality of life you enjoy today.
Even in the current political climate which some loonies on the left would call a "fascist regime" in the US no one is going to open fire on millions of refugees that could come to the border once their homes get flooded. And the author also forgets that if we want to save New York we would likely need China to be stable and continuing providing it's manufacturing capacity to the world which means that if its neighbourhood turns into a warzone the capacity of the west to perform these amazing feats of engineering would be greatly diminished.
If anything the media portrays the wrong message, I don't think we are screwed or we have already run out of time and reached some point of no return and I don't think that we will go extinct in the next 100 years due to climate change, I don't see climate change as something we solve but as something we adapt too and maybe eventually reverse but this also something that cannot be performed on a local scale because once it gets really bad and people get desperate they'll flood you and while a dyke can hold off water it won't hold up against 50 million people wanting to get in.
Yes we have the capacity to run engineering programs that would halt the rising sea levels, we can build huge dykes, perform land reclamation, pump water out and even use the rising sea levels for energy generation.
And while we can save Manhattan and perhaps even venice this won't help Bangladesh and other poor regions which are at risk of being flooded by the rising seas destroying not only their homes but also their ecology putting their limited food supply at greater risk.
And that is a problem a distbalized Bangladesh and other poor(er) countries in South East Asia would destabilize the more established nations like India, China and Pakistan all 3 of which are nuclear powers.
A destabilized middle east and africa would spill out into Europe, a destabilized South America would spill into North America.
You can't rely on local solutions for a global crisis if you want to maintain the same quality of life you enjoy today.
Even in the current political climate which some loonies on the left would call a "fascist regime" in the US no one is going to open fire on millions of refugees that could come to the border once their homes get flooded. And the author also forgets that if we want to save New York we would likely need China to be stable and continuing providing it's manufacturing capacity to the world which means that if its neighbourhood turns into a warzone the capacity of the west to perform these amazing feats of engineering would be greatly diminished.
If anything the media portrays the wrong message, I don't think we are screwed or we have already run out of time and reached some point of no return and I don't think that we will go extinct in the next 100 years due to climate change, I don't see climate change as something we solve but as something we adapt too and maybe eventually reverse but this also something that cannot be performed on a local scale because once it gets really bad and people get desperate they'll flood you and while a dyke can hold off water it won't hold up against 50 million people wanting to get in.
The title should be - We need all humans to get rich.
Non-clickbait title:
> "Humans Can Survive Below Sealevel"
Actual article's point:
> An academic paper exaggerated and now we're focusing too much on avoiding greenhouse-emissions and should instead focus on protecting below-sealevel areas.
..... Weird article.
> "Humans Can Survive Below Sealevel"
Actual article's point:
> An academic paper exaggerated and now we're focusing too much on avoiding greenhouse-emissions and should instead focus on protecting below-sealevel areas.
..... Weird article.
I thought it was some awesome breakthrough in underwater engineering that makes long term underwater human life sustainable, but the article had nothing to do with that and was much more mundane.
How about "Humans can survive rising sea levels"?
How about "Humans can survive rising sea levels"?
A general problem with climate change discussions is that the people who are vocal are largely uninformed, and the people who are informed are rather reserved.
Climate change charities, activists etc. do a very important role, and I am very grateful to them for it, but their impact on my personal level of informed-ness is actually negative.
Climate change charities, activists etc. do a very important role, and I am very grateful to them for it, but their impact on my personal level of informed-ness is actually negative.
From the piece:
"Alarming media stories that twist the facts about rising sea levels are dangerous because they scare people unnecessarily and push policymakers toward excessively expensive measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty and protect them with simple infrastructure."
Part of me is hopeful that this might be right.
And another part of me is worried that this might be a overly optimistic view to make us feel better.
I think I am leaning towards the latter when the proposed solution is simply "life the world's poorest out of poverty."
Feels like "we" have wanted to do that for a long time for many reasons.
Part of me is hopeful that this might be right.
And another part of me is worried that this might be a overly optimistic view to make us feel better.
I think I am leaning towards the latter when the proposed solution is simply "life the world's poorest out of poverty."
Feels like "we" have wanted to do that for a long time for many reasons.
And have been remarkably successful at it, tbh
The author largely seems to be a skeptic?
https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/nat...
We can't hope that some magical technology will come and save us from ourselves. We need to act now with what we have to avoid too much damage.
https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/nat...
We can't hope that some magical technology will come and save us from ourselves. We need to act now with what we have to avoid too much damage.
So he's saying that instead of working on reducing pollution, we should rather enable people to survive it, even if it means making them live underwater, because that'll increase wealth? Considering how incredibly unequal that wealth is bound to be, this just reads like a Big Coal backed piece to try and justify the destruction of the planet in the pursuit of profit.
No, he's saying that we should stop scaring people with likely future outcomes that are not likely.
Can we update the link to better reflect the title.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/03/24/jacques-cousteaus-...
I am not sure how much in good faith this author is, but honest discussion about mitigation of climate change needs to take place.
A huge amount of sea level rise is locked in already; the uncertainty is about the rate of change not the inevitability of it.
But straw-man arguments that costal communities are doomed because they are built below the coming high tide levels are not much help. Yes, there is a big and demonstrated possibility to mitigate this. An honest discussion of the costs and risks and tradeoffs is merited.
A huge amount of sea level rise is locked in already; the uncertainty is about the rate of change not the inevitability of it.
But straw-man arguments that costal communities are doomed because they are built below the coming high tide levels are not much help. Yes, there is a big and demonstrated possibility to mitigate this. An honest discussion of the costs and risks and tradeoffs is merited.
Hella mental gymnastics there. Instead of reducing greenhouse gases, apparently, we should be learning to turn every coastal city to Venice.
Given what's been happening to Venice recently, that might not be such a great idea.
>we should be learning to turn every coastal city to Venice
This sounds simpler than reducing greenhouse gasses
This sounds simpler than reducing greenhouse gasses
Not really, considering Venice itself is being impacted by rising sea levels.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/15/venice-council...
> Veneto’s regional council rejected a plan to combat climate change minutes before its offices on the Grand Canal, in Venice, were flooded, it has emerged as the city continues to battle high water levels.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/15/venice-council...
> Veneto’s regional council rejected a plan to combat climate change minutes before its offices on the Grand Canal, in Venice, were flooded, it has emerged as the city continues to battle high water levels.
Local bureaucracy is simpler to overcome than global bureaucracy which is needed to reduce global greenhouse emissions
Living on below sea-level creates huge flooding risk, with severe weather or terrorism multiplying the effects.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_Netherlands
Its like living in a city below a dam.
"Global seawater rise is ok because we could eventually get used to live in frequently flooded cities". That is the wrong way to see it. Crops (ok, maybe besides rice and a few more) may not adapt. The change doesn't stops there, nor would be the only thing that would change. And things will keep getting worse.
Years ago Lomborg and scientific american had a major clash. There was quite a lot to it, here's a summary (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lom...)
"Selective citations of the literature allow Lomborg to make statements that are correct but unrepresentative of the best, full state of environmental scientific knowledge"
"Yet his [lomborg's] critics are rarely attacking the facts in his citations per se; they fault what Lomborg does with them and, of course, his neglect of more relevant citations elsewhere."
Anyway, that's SA's side. Follow the link to find more. Caveats: this was years ago, and the quotes above are my selection, which you may consider one-sided.
"Selective citations of the literature allow Lomborg to make statements that are correct but unrepresentative of the best, full state of environmental scientific knowledge"
"Yet his [lomborg's] critics are rarely attacking the facts in his citations per se; they fault what Lomborg does with them and, of course, his neglect of more relevant citations elsewhere."
Anyway, that's SA's side. Follow the link to find more. Caveats: this was years ago, and the quotes above are my selection, which you may consider one-sided.
"stories that twist the facts"
Like this one?
Really, his message is, it's all going to shit, but we can survive?
Like this one?
Really, his message is, it's all going to shit, but we can survive?
The author is a long time climate change denier. He's apparently just moved onto a different phase of the denial strategy now that AGW is largely undeniable.
AGW may refer to:
* Anthropogenic global warming, overall warming of Earth's climate caused or produced by humans
* Anthropogenic global warming, overall warming of Earth's climate caused or produced by humans
Do you have a source showing he is a climate change denier? I think you should provide one given that you posted this trying to attack his credibility.
It doesn't take much Googling to prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
> In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
> In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question.
From what I can tell, that book does NOT deny climate change, it denies the efficacy of proposed interventions.
From the Wikipedia page you linked:
> He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature.
Misrepresenting climate science to dispute the efficacy of specific interventions is not the same as misrepresenting science to deny that climate change has human causes.
It does however mean that you should take his opinion on these matters with a grain of salt.
From the Wikipedia page you linked:
> He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature.
Misrepresenting climate science to dispute the efficacy of specific interventions is not the same as misrepresenting science to deny that climate change has human causes.
It does however mean that you should take his opinion on these matters with a grain of salt.
It’s just the next step in the denial. Once “it’s happening” becomes transparently silly to deny, the next step is “fine, it’s happening, but we can’t do anything”.
Hold on, what evidence do you have that Lomborg ever held that first position? I've run into interviews with him since forever and remember his position has having been very consistent: climate change is real but not an existential threat and we should be more rational in prioritizing our responses to it. Or something like that.
I don't think the term "climate change denier" applies; he seems to recognize that anthropogenic climate change is real, but proposes addressing the effects rather than cutting emissions, arguing that the former is more economically feasible.
This is a outright lie, he has never denied AGW
Please cite this.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lo...
Please cite this.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lo...
As someone not all that worked up over this, I don't find this kind of labelling and implicit conversation stopping all that convincing. I think it actually contributes to misinformation because it feeds into conspiracy theories and persecution complexes.
Other posts here attack the content of the post, which works better. It's probably also fair to critique the general approach if it is disingenuous in context.
Other posts here attack the content of the post, which works better. It's probably also fair to critique the general approach if it is disingenuous in context.
Oh good, throw a bad label at someone. Now there's no need to debate his ideas... right?
I'd like to coin the term "nuance-denier" so that we can insert it jingoistically into the lexicon. It applies to anyone who is incapable of admitting that most humans don't hold a rigid set of views that can be encapsulated by pithy, pejorative labels.
I'd like to coin the term "nuance-denier" so that we can insert it jingoistically into the lexicon. It applies to anyone who is incapable of admitting that most humans don't hold a rigid set of views that can be encapsulated by pithy, pejorative labels.
"hey don't do TOO much about climate change or else how will the fossil fuel industry be able to sit on it's laurels properly"
Because nothing says "a rising tide floats all boats" more than our currently massively diverging have/haven't disparity. A world in which 42 individuals own as much as 3.5 billion people, in which it was 65 individuals in the same position 2 years prior doesn't sound like a world in which the authors proposed "solutions" function at all.
Maybe that's the point.
Excuse me while I pillage and lay waste. Clearly we wouldn't want to risk doing TOO MUCH to salvage what's left of the age of mammals.
Because nothing says "a rising tide floats all boats" more than our currently massively diverging have/haven't disparity. A world in which 42 individuals own as much as 3.5 billion people, in which it was 65 individuals in the same position 2 years prior doesn't sound like a world in which the authors proposed "solutions" function at all.
Maybe that's the point.
Excuse me while I pillage and lay waste. Clearly we wouldn't want to risk doing TOO MUCH to salvage what's left of the age of mammals.
He admits climate change is real and we need to do something about it... but the main problem is the media, which is trying to claim climate change is real and we need to do something about it, but they are too scary about it.
He thinks it's going to go pretty smoothly building dykes to keep our cities from flooding so the media should not be making big deal out of it.
It's not a logical argument to me.
Building dykes to product numerous coastal areas may well be a good answer, but in aggregate that is an absolutely massive capital project. Media reports will obviously need to be part of that since people will need to understand why their taxes are going up and why the government is taking their land.
He also drops this doozy: "The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty..."
Oh, OK, so it's that's simple then. /s
Frankly, I think this is just a somewhat subtler form of climate change denial. He acknowledges the problem, but then hand-waves the problem away and blames the media.
He might as well be saying we'll use the magic crystals to solve our problems.