Scientists have detected warning signs of the collapse of the Gulf Stream(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Scientists have detected warning signs of the collapse of the Gulf Stream
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/05/change-ocean-collapse-atlantic-meridional/
76 comments
Great. Yet another scare. Let me guess - I should be eating bugs to stop the Gulf Stream collapse?
That's exactly what big business PR are trying to sell.
- Don't use plastic straws to save sea turtles. When nets are majority cause of sea life death, straws are not even a 1%.
Same with oil, coal industry.
Recycling, vegetarianism, minimalism etc. are highjacked by big business to shift blame for pollution to an average person. Its easier to push narrative that if only people recycled, there would be no microplastics and heaps of trash. Only if there was less cows the global warming would stop. And the most recent only if we stop bitcoin the planet would be saved.
When you say:
> I should be eating bugs to stop the Gulf Stream collapse?
You are falling for their narrative and getting outraged at imaginary people and imaginary scapegoat solutions (or people who fell for it and tell you that you should be vegan etc).
You can help by not feeding that propaganda machine.
- Don't use plastic straws to save sea turtles. When nets are majority cause of sea life death, straws are not even a 1%.
Same with oil, coal industry.
Recycling, vegetarianism, minimalism etc. are highjacked by big business to shift blame for pollution to an average person. Its easier to push narrative that if only people recycled, there would be no microplastics and heaps of trash. Only if there was less cows the global warming would stop. And the most recent only if we stop bitcoin the planet would be saved.
When you say:
> I should be eating bugs to stop the Gulf Stream collapse?
You are falling for their narrative and getting outraged at imaginary people and imaginary scapegoat solutions (or people who fell for it and tell you that you should be vegan etc).
You can help by not feeding that propaganda machine.
Bingo. We've all be had. Keep eating the patented Plant Burger and all will be ok. It's your personal responsibility to save the world. Pay no attention to the world spanning business empires and world governments that are 40 times the size of the largest companies. You should be personally ashamed of that plastic cup, you made the invisible hand of the market use up all the tight oil resources of the planet.
This reminds me of the condo in Florida which recently collapsed killing many of its inhabitants/owners.
There had been warning signs and reports that something should be done to fix the building. But because it was a condo the fixes would have had to be paid by the individual condo-owners. So they voted not to do the expensive repairs, and then many of them died because of that.
Maybe climate-change is a bit like that?
There had been warning signs and reports that something should be done to fix the building. But because it was a condo the fixes would have had to be paid by the individual condo-owners. So they voted not to do the expensive repairs, and then many of them died because of that.
Maybe climate-change is a bit like that?
Jesus Christ. Talk about some next-level victim blaming. Were you in the HOA meetings? Do you know how the issues were presented? Do you know whether the severity was properly communicated?
High horses also collapse from time to time, so best not ride yours so proudly.
High horses also collapse from time to time, so best not ride yours so proudly.
People typically frown upon victim blaming in cases where there is a perpetrator. In the cases of buildings collapsing due to known structural faults that were not addressed or climate change due to known behaviours that were not addressed, the perpetrator and the victim can be one and the same. There are times when we have to acknowledge what is happening around us and take action or face the consequences.
It isn’t exactly victim blaming when the HOA wouldn’t authorize the repairs (several articles looked into this). You can’t just go do the repairs without approval in these buildings.
Right somebody has to approve to pay the bills
Victims kill themselves due to negligence or lack of training all the time, it's not far fetched nor insensitive to understand reality. They built the building on sand right next to salt water and hurricanes, it wasn't like they built it in Minnesota. We should have expectations of people to consider the inherent risk of such an idea.
We have the same thing with some apartment owners.
They didn't want to allocate a budget for repairs in the future.
They didn't want to allocate a budget for repairs in the future.
It's just an analogy no need to get nasty.
[deleted]
And still nobody who matters takes climate change seriously.
Why don't we let climate deniers put their money where their mouth is? Let them underwrite fire and flood insurance policies extending decades into the future.
Libertarians have been begging for this. Let the free market set flood insurance prices. The only reason people live in these high risk areas is because the taxpayer backstops all those insane losses.
Let everyone who currently has a plan keep it. Any new residents must use private insurance. After a disaster, those that had government flood insurance will be paid out one final time then be obligated to move or use private insurance.
Let everyone who currently has a plan keep it. Any new residents must use private insurance. After a disaster, those that had government flood insurance will be paid out one final time then be obligated to move or use private insurance.
Isn’t buying property in coastal cities effectively putting deniers’ money where their mouth is?
That depends. Coastal cities are going to be fine for many years to come whereas inland areas where the height differences are more pronounced are going to see lots of flooding. Keep in mind that the coastal plain is just that: a plain, there is a lot of space for water to be routed to, whereas in a more accentuated terrain it can only stream through the valleys.
Are coastal cities the only places that will become unlivable? Sea level rise gets a lot of attention but I wonder if a lot of the interior US won't just turn into unlivable desert too.
San Francisco is coastal for example but a lot of it is actually at high enough elevation to survive sea level rise, and I suspect its proximity to the ocean makes it more likely to weather temperature increases than somewhere like Phoenix (which is totally screwed if its water source dries up).
San Francisco is coastal for example but a lot of it is actually at high enough elevation to survive sea level rise, and I suspect its proximity to the ocean makes it more likely to weather temperature increases than somewhere like Phoenix (which is totally screwed if its water source dries up).
In Belgium there was unusually heavy rainfall causing flooding in the inland. Coastal regions were spared. The rainfall has been attributed to climate change by our weather services.
https://www.insider.com/floods-belgium-heavy-rain-wreaks-hav...
A few weeks before, a windburst, basically air dropping down from great hight, came from nowhere and destroyed some homes, again in the inland. No direct attribution to climate change, but another weather fenomena so rare they had to explain it to the news readers.
https://www.msn.com/nl-be/nieuws/nationaal/beauraing-eerste-...
At least the coastal regions have an easy fix: higher dikes.
https://www.insider.com/floods-belgium-heavy-rain-wreaks-hav...
A few weeks before, a windburst, basically air dropping down from great hight, came from nowhere and destroyed some homes, again in the inland. No direct attribution to climate change, but another weather fenomena so rare they had to explain it to the news readers.
https://www.msn.com/nl-be/nieuws/nationaal/beauraing-eerste-...
At least the coastal regions have an easy fix: higher dikes.
The inland regions also have an easy fix: uiterwaarden [1]. Basically, accept that the rivers will periodically overflow and designate an area immediately next to the river as a perennial wetland. In NL, they're usually combined with rewilding projects.
By allowing the river to overflow in certain areas, downstream cities along the river won't be faced with flash floods (just a prolonged period of higher-than-average water levels).
(edit: it seems "wet meadow" [2] is the closest English equivalent, although those seem of natural origin and not specifically intended as a flood-management device)
[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uiterwaard
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh#Wet_meadows
By allowing the river to overflow in certain areas, downstream cities along the river won't be faced with flash floods (just a prolonged period of higher-than-average water levels).
(edit: it seems "wet meadow" [2] is the closest English equivalent, although those seem of natural origin and not specifically intended as a flood-management device)
[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uiterwaard
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh#Wet_meadows
That will help with the flooding but not with the windfall.
The only thing I can think of for windfall is living with a much stronger roof over your head.
The only thing I can think of for windfall is living with a much stronger roof over your head.
Not when the government subsidizes flood insurance.
That's because the voters don't want to change their live styles. There are many things (rich country) people can do (buy used clothes/things, eat less meat, smaller/no car, smaller house, green energy, less flying on holidays ...) but they don't -- grandparents buying new SUVs to shuttle around their grandchildren, oh the irony -- and the IPCC will announce on Monday that reality has progressed worse than assumed.
Politicians don't make the climate, consumers are - consume driven climate crisis.
Politicians don't make the climate, consumers are - consume driven climate crisis.
You’re being a useful idiot for companies: put all blame and responsibility on individuals and you can easily shift away all blame from companies. But do you know what really works? Banning F-gases. Banning non-electric cars. Mandating new houses to be energy-neutral. Regulations at national or continental level are infinitely more effective than shaming individuals for not buying solar panels or whatever.
Don’t let companies follow demand from consumers, let consumer only buy stuff that won’t destroy our only world.
Don’t let companies follow demand from consumers, let consumer only buy stuff that won’t destroy our only world.
Even if all of the citizens of the US did what you said tomorrow, would it really make a difference with China producing (as of 2015) 29.4% of all CO2 emissions? Even if the US (at 14.3%) somehow cut emissions to zero, there are still the not-so-rich countries that comprise the “Other” group that is responsible for 31.5%. Your feelings are valid, you may just be directing them at the wrong culprits IMHO.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
Those figures are hard to attribute correctly because they don’t account for export manufacturing. Consumption in the USA is fueling Chinese exports and is responsible for a large chunk of their CO2 emissions.
And that's why politicians can and should enact laws that tax these externalities at the industry level. Cars might appear to cost more once the manufacturers pass on the tax to consumers, but that's just because you aren't accounting for the real cost of it destroying the environment when you buy one.
Need to also add in wage and environmental parity tariffs. There is no point having higher standards here if it means China will use the higher costs as a competitive advantage while still polluting the same amount.
[deleted]
Companies motivated purely by capital are the only ones truly responsible for all this, and are subsequently the ones who can make the biggest changes to undo what they've done.
Consumers have much less control over all of this than you seem to think.
Consumers have much less control over all of this than you seem to think.
This. I agree about the changes individuals should take (and I do it myself: almost no meat, never owned a car, only used planes a couple times when I had no choice (for work), etc. though I know there are still things I could do better), but a lot of over-consumption comes from greedy companies that force new "needs" onto consumers. Nobody needs an SUV, nobody needs a new iPhone every time a new model comes out, etc. But companies make them think they do.
[Edit] Voting me down gives me so much pleasure, it proves my world view. Thanks to all the downvoters, you've made my day. And don't we all just want to feel validated.
Consumers have all of the control.
Growing up in Germany, I understand your opinion. No one wants to take personal responsibility. After WW2 no one in Germany was responsible for anything. WW2 just happened. The others did it. I followed orders. This opinion changed when people grew up who were born after WW2 which lead to a cultural revolution. The same will happen with the climate crisis. Children born now will hold current consumers responsible in the future - and they will be angry with their parents and grandparents.
Consumers have all of the control.
Don't eat meat.
Switch to a green energy provider.
Buy small car.
Move to a smaller house.
Buy used clothes.
Use your phone longer.
Consume less!
Growing up in Germany, I understand your opinion. No one wants to take personal responsibility. After WW2 no one in Germany was responsible for anything. WW2 just happened. The others did it. I followed orders. This opinion changed when people grew up who were born after WW2 which lead to a cultural revolution. The same will happen with the climate crisis. Children born now will hold current consumers responsible in the future - and they will be angry with their parents and grandparents.
No, if you do all of those you're still quite far from carbon neutral. For example I live in a small flat, I don't own a car, I only eat meat when invited somewhere, I pay for "green" electricity and I wear my clothes until they fall apart. Yet my apartment is still heated with oil, the food I buy is farmed with machines burning Diesel and the steel in my bicycle is still made with coke. The "green" electricity I buy is still mostly lignite in reality.
Consumers can only slow down climate change. It is impossible for consumers to implement the systemic changes needed to reach carbon neutrality.
Consumers can only slow down climate change. It is impossible for consumers to implement the systemic changes needed to reach carbon neutrality.
You seem to live in Germany, why are you not with
Greenpeace Energy if you care? Any reasons I should think about?
"No, if you do all of those you're still quite far from carbon neutral."
The climate crisis is not because we're not carbon neutral, but because produce so much CO2/methane/[..].
Carbon neutral is the wrong concept. Raising cows and eating them can be done carbon neutral, but converting CO2 into methane still leads to a climate crisis.
Humanity hasn't been carbon neutral for at least 5000 years, not being carbon neutral is not the problem.
The climate crisis is not because we're not carbon neutral, but because produce so much CO2/methane/[..].
Carbon neutral is the wrong concept. Raising cows and eating them can be done carbon neutral, but converting CO2 into methane still leads to a climate crisis.
Humanity hasn't been carbon neutral for at least 5000 years, not being carbon neutral is not the problem.
No, you're wrong. Not being carbon neutral is the problem. Global warming is proportional to the amount of GHG is the atmosphere. A good fraction of the CO2 once emitted (and Methane once oxidized back to CO2) stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years and traps heat until geological processes sequester it. We probably could go back to 17-th century amounts of coal burning and still run into a climate crisis eventually. It would just take much longer than at current rates of emission.
No you are wrong, humanity hasn't been carbon neutral for 5000 years at least.
CO2 and temperature have been in the same stable envelope since past 10 000 years and rise of civilization, until around 1980's.
Yes, and from around 3000BC to 1980 humanity has not been carbon neutral.
And atmospheric carbon dioxide has been creeping up very slowly for the last few thousand years until the industrial revolution where the chart really took off as both carbon-per-capita and population started growing quickly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/CO2_40k....
> The climate crisis is not because we're not carbon neutral, but because produce so much CO2/methane/[..].
Precisely. And who pumps out the majority of those gasses? The companies incentivised by capital to continue doing so!
I think people need to eat less meat. So I agree with you there. In fact I agree with pretty much everything you listed in your other comment.
But.. Doing all of that will not stop the companies that are actually destroying the environment. They will continue to do so unaffected by our personal choices, as long as they're being paid to turn our lights on.
Putting the burden on the individual to change their life is ridiculous when there are things out of people's control.
Precisely. And who pumps out the majority of those gasses? The companies incentivised by capital to continue doing so!
I think people need to eat less meat. So I agree with you there. In fact I agree with pretty much everything you listed in your other comment.
But.. Doing all of that will not stop the companies that are actually destroying the environment. They will continue to do so unaffected by our personal choices, as long as they're being paid to turn our lights on.
Putting the burden on the individual to change their life is ridiculous when there are things out of people's control.
No really, corporations consume way more than individuals. I work for one and their consumption per employee is easily higher than my individual consumption.
If you want to change the world, change the incentives. Tax CO2 released from fossil fuels appropriately (enough to offset the effects completely) and everything will adjust thanks to the magic of the market.
If you want to change the world, change the incentives. Tax CO2 released from fossil fuels appropriately (enough to offset the effects completely) and everything will adjust thanks to the magic of the market.
"No really, corporations consume way more than individuals"
Which ones? What corporations consume more energy that do not produce things consumers buy? If you buy a car, the corporation is using up energy, but for you, to build your car. They don't consume the energy for themselves.
Facebook uses energy? Yes so you can consume Facebook.
Which ones? What corporations consume more energy that do not produce things consumers buy? If you buy a car, the corporation is using up energy, but for you, to build your car. They don't consume the energy for themselves.
Facebook uses energy? Yes so you can consume Facebook.
I suspect the point is that consumers have very little control over how corporations consume energy. In the case of the production of cars, consumers can only decide to buy a car or to not buy a car. They do not have the power to modify the design or manufacturing process. (It is also worth noting that this is true regardless of the mode of transportation the consumer chooses.) A similar thing can be said for the web. A consumer can choose to use Facebook or not to use Facebook. They do not have the power to modify Facebook's operations to reduce its environmental impact.
It's also worth noting that consumers rarely have the data necessary to compare the environmental impact of products or services being offered. For example: are ebooks or print books more environmentally friendly? It's easy to pretend the former since it looks cleaner. No trees are being chopped down to make pulp. No diesel belching trucks to deliver physical goods. On the other hand, there was a time when the semiconductor industry was seen as clean since it lacked the belching smokestacks of traditional industries. (The mining of rare materials was unseen. The dumping of hazardous chemicals was unseen. Ewaste wasn't even acknowledge until the mid to late 90's.)
It's also worth noting that consumers rarely have the data necessary to compare the environmental impact of products or services being offered. For example: are ebooks or print books more environmentally friendly? It's easy to pretend the former since it looks cleaner. No trees are being chopped down to make pulp. No diesel belching trucks to deliver physical goods. On the other hand, there was a time when the semiconductor industry was seen as clean since it lacked the belching smokestacks of traditional industries. (The mining of rare materials was unseen. The dumping of hazardous chemicals was unseen. Ewaste wasn't even acknowledge until the mid to late 90's.)
> In the case of the production of cars, consumers can only decide to buy a car or to not buy a car. They do not have the power to modify the design or manufacturing process.
Not overnight, but in a free market, people buying SUVs over smaller cars makes producers make more and larger SUVs. That trend can be reversed if consumers start buying fewer SUVs and more smaller cars. I think that would work in reality too, even though the real market isn’t a perfectly free one.
Not overnight, but in a free market, people buying SUVs over smaller cars makes producers make more and larger SUVs. That trend can be reversed if consumers start buying fewer SUVs and more smaller cars. I think that would work in reality too, even though the real market isn’t a perfectly free one.
> It's also worth noting that consumers rarely have the data necessary to compare the environmental impact of products or services being offered.
Exactly, and this is the kind of problem that's solved by taxing externalities appropriately. Then the impact shows up in the price, and the common consumer behavior of preferring cheaper products naturally leads to preferring lower environmental impact products.
Exactly, and this is the kind of problem that's solved by taxing externalities appropriately. Then the impact shows up in the price, and the common consumer behavior of preferring cheaper products naturally leads to preferring lower environmental impact products.
Every consumer can choose a green energy provider.
A minority does.
Every consumer can buy a smaller car that uses half the the steel and consumes half the gas.
A minority does.
Every consumer can eat less meat.
A minority does.
Consumerism trumps everything. Consumerism is ten thousands years old when people started to produce for other - and the strongest force to predict people behaviour. Consumerism killed East Germany and it brought down the Soviet Union and it will consume capitalism.
A minority does.
Every consumer can buy a smaller car that uses half the the steel and consumes half the gas.
A minority does.
Every consumer can eat less meat.
A minority does.
Consumerism trumps everything. Consumerism is ten thousands years old when people started to produce for other - and the strongest force to predict people behaviour. Consumerism killed East Germany and it brought down the Soviet Union and it will consume capitalism.
Lot of truth in there. We need to consider not only the supply-side of CO2 reduction but the demand-side of it as well[1]. The latter unfortunately gets dwarfed for various reasons. At the end of it all, we as individuals have to make tough choices in the coming decades (years in even). How much of it is forced up on us by nature vs our collective initiative remains an open question.
[1]https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/demand-side-potential-needs...
[1]https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/demand-side-potential-needs...
Politicians make all kinds of laws that the voters don't really want. Usually when the lobbyists want them.
While the SUV-driving crowd is stomach churning, it is also small in the big picture. The huge elephant in the room is global population size, moving apace toward 10 billions and possibly beyond. Industrializing 10 billion people turns out to be a very dirty business.
If US were to ban ICE cars and truck and switch go horse-and-buggy tomorrow, it will save 29% of US emissions. US accounts for 15% of global emissions. Thus the overall global savings will be 4.35%, or about 1.44 GT CO2/year. Fantastic. Yet 95.65% of emissions will still be going out every year. In 20 years, emissions have grown from 25 GT CO2/year to 36 GT CO2/year, or about .5 GT CO2 / year. The whole 4.35% savings would turn out to be a minor blip, overtaken in about 3 years by new emissions elsewhere in the developing world.
We are already 40+% above Paris agreement 1.5C emissions levels of 25 GT CO2/year. We need deep cuts on massive scale. If the world were even remotely serious about tackling CO2 emissions for a rough but perhaps survivable crash landing, we'd see:
* World wide moratorium on building new coal/gas/oil power plants and ICE vehicles.
* World wide moratorium on economic growth. Good bye lifting the third world out of poverty. Good bye western retirement.
* Gradual phasing out of industry in developed countries. Good bye middle class lifestyle.
* Ban of immigration from low emission countries into high emission countries.
https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
If US were to ban ICE cars and truck and switch go horse-and-buggy tomorrow, it will save 29% of US emissions. US accounts for 15% of global emissions. Thus the overall global savings will be 4.35%, or about 1.44 GT CO2/year. Fantastic. Yet 95.65% of emissions will still be going out every year. In 20 years, emissions have grown from 25 GT CO2/year to 36 GT CO2/year, or about .5 GT CO2 / year. The whole 4.35% savings would turn out to be a minor blip, overtaken in about 3 years by new emissions elsewhere in the developing world.
We are already 40+% above Paris agreement 1.5C emissions levels of 25 GT CO2/year. We need deep cuts on massive scale. If the world were even remotely serious about tackling CO2 emissions for a rough but perhaps survivable crash landing, we'd see:
* World wide moratorium on building new coal/gas/oil power plants and ICE vehicles.
* World wide moratorium on economic growth. Good bye lifting the third world out of poverty. Good bye western retirement.
* Gradual phasing out of industry in developed countries. Good bye middle class lifestyle.
* Ban of immigration from low emission countries into high emission countries.
https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
A lot of blame comes from the journalists. Might is a very uncertain word. "The world might collapse" is equivalent with "the world might be fine". Also without explaining what a "Gulf stream" is, it might be an Algerian terrorist organization or a building or anything else. There are a lot of people who forgot about things they learned in school. They shall add some context, but writing is hard work.
The word might is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that article.
The plight of the climate scientist: Say you're not 100% sure about your results and people dismiss them as speculation, don't say it and people dismiss your results as fearmongering.
The thing with being a prophet is that the prophecies need to come true.
Whether the prophet uses computer models and fat piles of data and is called a scientist or not is a detail.
Whether the prophet uses computer models and fat piles of data and is called a scientist or not is a detail.
I mean, sure, we could wait until irreversible catastrophes happen before we listen to the people who predict them, but that sounds a bit stupid to me.
I love conservation amd vote in favor of parks and such at every opportunity.
The difference seems to be whether the appeal is to the intellect, or the appeal is to fear.
The difference seems to be whether the appeal is to the intellect, or the appeal is to fear.
The difference seems to be the willingness to spend money now to potentially avert huge costs in the future.
We could, but the people who think long term are going to be much more worried about where the energy comes from, full stop, rather than the climate. If there is enough energy we can survive anything comfortably. Cities can be moved. If we don't crack that nut then even a pleasant climate will probably see a lot of bloodshed.
At any point in this journey the climate problems could have been brushed aside by going nuclear. If we aren't going to go nuclear, then we've done the sensible thing and waited for renewables to be cost competitive.
At any point in this journey the climate problems could have been brushed aside by going nuclear. If we aren't going to go nuclear, then we've done the sensible thing and waited for renewables to be cost competitive.
Both "going nuclear" and building a sufficient amount of renewable generation capacity counts as "spending money now" for me.
Knowing Homo Sapiens, I don't expect any different.
"There is no proof of global pandemic ever have happened in our lifetimes, no need to prepare for them."
If you get bad news, look at the proportionality of cost preparing for the event compared to the cost of the event. A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost.
Same goes for gulf stream collapse. Cost of the for-warning system, cost of agricultural switch of europe to the canadian model, against the cost of not doing so..
If you get bad news, look at the proportionality of cost preparing for the event compared to the cost of the event. A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost.
Same goes for gulf stream collapse. Cost of the for-warning system, cost of agricultural switch of europe to the canadian model, against the cost of not doing so..
What is worse is that the United States had a warning system. The world depended on it.
The budget for it was 800 million dollars.
It was removed from the budget in 2018 and I believe the funding ran out September 2019.
It only took three months.
By March 2020-the administration was putting out $800 BILLION dollars.
And since then they’ve put out more.
Taiwan—which adopted the US system (and therefore was in Wuhan January 4) had no real outbreak until 2 month ago—and even then, the outbreak was contained.
Frustrating…
The budget for it was 800 million dollars.
It was removed from the budget in 2018 and I believe the funding ran out September 2019.
It only took three months.
By March 2020-the administration was putting out $800 BILLION dollars.
And since then they’ve put out more.
Taiwan—which adopted the US system (and therefore was in Wuhan January 4) had no real outbreak until 2 month ago—and even then, the outbreak was contained.
Frustrating…
You tend to get the government that you deserve in a democracy.
I know we call the USA a democracy, but I’m becoming more of a stickler for calling it a Republic. Some of the states are a bit more Democratic than the Federal government.
I wonder whether people would take the decisions more seriously if they had to vote on them as they so in Switzerland.
I wonder whether people would take the decisions more seriously if they had to vote on them as they so in Switzerland.
It probably would but (1) that requires a somewhat educated electorate and (2) it takes a while to get to the point where a system like that operates smoothly. Switzerland has had this system going back to 1848 https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/18480606/index.html , and at the time who got to vote was not quite the same as how it is today so the system was gradually expanded.
If you were to switch overnight to referenda in say the United States the result would be mayhem.
If you were to switch overnight to referenda in say the United States the result would be mayhem.
> A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost.
Fair enough.
The difficulty arises in context when a menu of risks exist, and resources to mitigate them are insufficient to address all of the risks sufficiently.
Choices occur, and consequences follow.
Fair enough.
The difficulty arises in context when a menu of risks exist, and resources to mitigate them are insufficient to address all of the risks sufficiently.
Choices occur, and consequences follow.
As a country, we collectively have vastly more resources than we need to mitigate all these risks.
The problem is that a huge proportion of those resources is being hoarded by the super-rich.
As a society, we have collectively decided that allowing massive, unprecedented concentration of wealth is more important than addressing any of the critical issues facing us today.
Personally, I disagree with that decision, and believe we should require those who can part with billions of dollars without it affecting their lifestyle in any way to do so for the benefit of all.
The problem is that a huge proportion of those resources is being hoarded by the super-rich.
As a society, we have collectively decided that allowing massive, unprecedented concentration of wealth is more important than addressing any of the critical issues facing us today.
Personally, I disagree with that decision, and believe we should require those who can part with billions of dollars without it affecting their lifestyle in any way to do so for the benefit of all.
It has not so much to do with prediction, nobody can predict everything.
The science is following trends, using models and projections. There are real measures that show more instabilities, signs of weakening and the models explain why with confidence. From that we can anticipate, knowing the accumulated effects from trends may "lag" by 30-50 years. For anticipation, this means events will worsen over that span even if we stop emissions.
That greenhouse gases in a closed vessel causes warming when light shines is settled science past 100 years. We see cooling stratosphete and warming troposphere, all in line with the models.
It's kind of like discovering your house is on fire, then arguing warmth is good for cooking.
The science is following trends, using models and projections. There are real measures that show more instabilities, signs of weakening and the models explain why with confidence. From that we can anticipate, knowing the accumulated effects from trends may "lag" by 30-50 years. For anticipation, this means events will worsen over that span even if we stop emissions.
That greenhouse gases in a closed vessel causes warming when light shines is settled science past 100 years. We see cooling stratosphete and warming troposphere, all in line with the models.
It's kind of like discovering your house is on fire, then arguing warmth is good for cooking.
This is the trend in journalism: to replace "is" with "might" or "maybe". So instead of a news you get a rumour.
Sci Hub seems to not fetch it.