Global warning may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario. Why do they, who are already poor, need to pay the price right now?
I think most people rather want to be not poor in a world with global warning than poor in one without. I think I would.
I think you’re trying to rationalize the position of the protesters, but this is a dangerous rationalization.
Arguing that it “may or may not” lead to catastrophic consequences leaves the door open for doubt.
I understand if poor people or nations are frustrated, and I agree that the rich have a responsibility to show leadership, but there should be no doubt that climate change will most negatively affect the poor.
You don’t know.
Unfortunetely fast gain motion sparked by capitalism is also in the vains of people responsible for legiatlation.
Humans have too many self-destruct mechanisms embedded in them to accomplish anything in the long run as a civilisation. We either have to change drastically or face extinction. Untill the people who CAN make a difference start to care - there is not a lot masses can do. Grouping in modern age to the size that can influence those people at power is very hard.
What would a runaway greenhouse effect realistically look like? Venus?
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=permafrost&sort=byPopularity&p...
Doesn't Methane burn? Maybe another energy source for the future...
Of course bad stuff can happen, no question.
From the article it sounds to me as if there is a lot of Methane to go around. Maybe we should use it up, and use the energy to power air conditioning and growing food in mines and wherever. That would already solve two of the scenarios in the article - unworkable climates and food shortages.
Diseases also seem treatable, and the article mentioning bubonic plague is rather reassuring. We have antibiotics now to treat that, and vaccines against many old scourges.
I thought CO2 is mainly an issue high up n the atmosphere. Presumably on the ground, it would also help plants grow, which would in turn use it up.
I'm just saying, things might turn out different than expected.
Maybe in general, it simply is impossible to prevent change in the world. A large fraction of the doomsday scenario addiction of mankind might simply be fear of change.
That statement is preposterously absurd.
Global warming is a serious issue. Ludicrous statements such as the above just detract from reasonable debate.
Acidic oceans. Too much methane in our atmosphere and other “great” things, that have all happened in earths past.
Even if it doesn’t get to the Roland Emmerich version, which I agree we likely won’t, climate change will still displace billions of people. Just imagine how a world that couldn’t handle a few million refugees will react to a billion.
Climate change is the biggest and most important threat that humans ever faced, and we’re rioting to stop the solutions. I’m truly not sure where you or others find your optimism in that. Is it the falling man syndrome? After the first two floors you felt fine, and you even turned your back to the approaching ground, because it didn’t make you feel good?
I agree that the Roland Emmerich version is absurd, but we frankly would benefit immensely by acting as though it wasn’t.