> the consistent global drop in insect populations has far more to do with deforestation and chemical disbursement
That is climate change as a result of human behavior, is it not?
That is climate change as a result of human behavior, is it not?
Colony collapse is a big problem, but I don't think you can blame it on climate change. Insects are super adaptable, and it's much more likely an overuse in pesticides and other pollutants. If you stop using them and stop trucking bees across the nation, you reduce CO2 incidentally, but that shouldn't be the main focus at all.
I feel like climate change turns into "When all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails." There is a shit ton of plastic particulates in the ocean. That's not due to climate change. There are lakes of sludge in factory cities all over China. That's not due to climate change. Both of those are due to pure consumption; shipping and waste.
If you reduce other real forms of pollution, by consuming less, you incidentally reduce CO2. You focus on CO2 and the world is still going to rip itself apart as we replace CO2 for other pollution.
> You focus on CO2 and the world is still going to rip itself apart as we replace CO2 for other pollution.
If we try to reduce CO2 solely via reduced consumption we'll have a massive and painful collapse in standard of living, which would likely result in widespread conflict and turmoil, undermining efforts to control pollution altogether. That is an approach that will rip up the world. And it's totally unnecessary, given the scale of potential renewable resources available and the huge opportunities for greater efficiency that maintain and in many cases improve our standard of living.
Increasing solar, wind, and tightly managed nuclear doesn't replace CO2 with other pollution.
Decarbonizing electricity generation and electrifying transportation are strictly less polluting than any previous approach we've taken to energy and transportation since the industrial age.
Also, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. China is already pivoting to take its local pollution problem more seriously for the sake of its own population's health, much as Europe and the US started to do a few decades ago (therefore catalytic converters). CO2 reduction in the energy supply also reduces local particulate pollution.
If it's a single-minded focus that fails to look at the issue holistically, I agree. As in, if the approach is simply 'everything that produces CO2 is now verboten', that will likely bring us to the result you describe.
But I'm not convinced that's the only feasible approach - As you allude to there are many alternative viewpoints on how our existing political, economic and social norms might be modified to reduce consumption and waste, without throwing out the baby with the bath water. But, they require shifts away from the current track and that’s not likely until the crisis intensifies. By which time, it may be too late to make meaningful change with the benefit of stability.
But therein lies the crux of the challenge - with a 30-year lag between emissions and effects, How do you secure the buy-in for meaningful wide-reaching change ahead of those impacts being felt?
From wikipedia,
> Climate is the long-term average of weather
But yes, generally when people say "climate change" they're talking about the global climate, not regional climates.