Hacker News Reader

Comment by i_haz_rabies | Hacker News Reader

I think the problem is that collapse _is actually inevitable_ if we don't solve climate change, and if you don't think humanity is capable of the coordination and sacrifice necessary to solve it, you are left with one conclusion.

View on HN

Where in the IPCC report does it say that collapse is inevitable? Why would that be the only conclusion? One can imagine global civilization adapting and doing what it can to mitigate the effects of climate change. Soldiering on might be one way to put it. If modern civilization and the biosphere overall are more resilient than some assume, then adaptation is a possibility.

One can also imagine cleaner technologies and carbon capture rapidly replacing fossil fuels in the next two decades, reducing the riskier scenarios. At any rate, there's no certainty since none of us has a time machine, and climate models are models of the climate, not human civilization or future technologies.

Clean tech and carbon capture is solving climate change. I think the post above meant collapse is inevitable if we continue to do nothing. The IPCC doesn't exist to model human responses to climate change, so would have nothing to say on the subject of collapse. Perhaps inevitable is not entirely accurate... But "very likely" seems prudent.

Energy descent is another interesting angle - We know for a fact that the rate of replacement of fossil fuels is orders of magnitude below the rate at which we've been consuming it, and that there is no equal which will allow our energy-rich lifestyles to continue.

This implies at a certain point we descend to a less energy-rich lifestyle because we have no alternatives. What that descent looks like, graceful or painful, is an open question. As is exactly when it would happen - Folks were convinced peak oil was just around the corner but reality is a bit less simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com