Climate Disaster Is the New Normal. Can We Save Ourselves?

The selfishness of the species could be its downfall.

Looks like millions of people died in China from flooding around that time.

But I don't think it's comparable and it's a distraction that deflects from the truth the article points out.

We also have vaccines, antibiotics, and a lot more knowledge. Doesn't mean we should say oh well with a shrug.

We are causing more death & more extreme weather. We have a moral obligation to do something about it.

And a lot of us feel like the consequences of our actions & current inaction is a giant threat to society & humanity. Not an apocalyptic post zombie hell fetishized on /r/collapse, but widespread hunger, social upheaval, and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_d...

Cherry picking failed predictions from popular magazines does in no way counter decades of peer reviewed climate science

Very interesting link.

While it's true that the predictions didn't turn out to be true, one thing is interesting: we got rid of things like DDT and CFCs. Maybe because of the doomsayers.

So in the end, it might be an efficient way of self-control and correction mechanism.

Good to see the CEI continues to shill for big oil, doing whatever they can to undermine any attempt to address climate change. Right on brand for those monsters. Kinda funny given the likes of Exxon had to stop funding them. But, I'm sure they've still got plenty of folks in the coal industry and so forth keeping them afloat.

Given that article was back in 2019 I wonder what misinformation they're spreading now. Checking, I see they've made the pivot to "kfine, I guess climate change is real, but it's nbd! Also government still bad!"

> In fact, climate change does not endanger the survival of civilization or the habitability of the planet. So-called climate solutions are bureaucratic power grabs and corporate welfare schemes with no detectable climate-related benefits.

The article talks about this American focus on private land, compared to Europe as a barrier to just buying land.

I think there is a middle ground, probably just using tax/stimulus incentives + zoning. The article mentions flood insurance, get rid of that it would be unaffordable for most to live in these places.

It's silly to spend billions rebuilding the same places over and over again. Didn't they replace the large transmission towers a few years ago, just for them to blow over again. With no backups in place.

I understand these are homes and lives and families. But that money would be better spent helping them transition. A lot of us will fall into this category, not just the coasts. Hell I'm even thinking of moving to a higher elevation (Denver) it's 95+ today and I can barely breath with all the smoke and pollution.

Though a good benefit of protecting smaller areas with extreme passion is that density is probably better for emissions too.