I'm thinking about choosing a new place to live right now. Climate change is a big factor for that.
Ice-albedo feedback - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice%E2%80%93albedo_feedback
Permafrost thaw feedback - https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/global-carbon-budget-perm...
Forestfire\Drought feedback - https://weatherology.com/trending/articles/Drought-Feedback-...
Jetstream Disruption feedback - https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
It'll be like stopping an avalanche with a shovel.
Any control theory guys out there with suggestions?
We desperately need an energy inexpensive way to sequester atmospheric carbon underground in stable (mineral) form. Hopefully we’ll see progress from Climeworks or similar concerns in this space.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/...
And after we stop emmitting CO2, we can focus on artificial decarbonization. But I would rather invest in proven technology, like reforesting first.
Nothing small and cheap. We've been applying a massive forcing effect by adding billions of tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere over decades. It's going to require a commensurate amount of effort, at the very least, to swing the needle back in the other direction.
Our best bet might be something crazy like using nukes to set off volcanoes to generate an ongoing low level 'nuclear winter' type effect. We'd have to be careful to pick the right volcanoes, though, to minimize the CO2 emitted by said volcanoes.
[0] https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/15/11799/2015/acpd-15-1...
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/...
Tipping points have ability to change our climate in a very, very short time.
For example, Gulfstream breaking or redirecting can be a sudden event. Many people forget that Europe is very far north compared to its climate. If you chose a lattitude so that half Canadians live north of it and half south of it, that lattitude would intersect Croatia, Italy and Spain.
A sudden break in Gulfstream would bring immediate step change to European climate, complete crop and extensive infrastructure failure.
Obama bought a property in Martha's Vineyard, why would a former President with all the knowledge about global warming buy it?
I dont think rich people like to lose money.
Would you pay for ice when you know it would already melt when you get it?
That's grift and theft.
I'd honestly love to hear your thinking about how to find a climate-change 'aware' location to live, thanks.
Very well protected with mountains on one side (but far enough to avoid the major floods or mud slides). Some rivers in the city do flood, but stick to the higher-placed properties and you'll be fine. Some exposure to forest fire smoke, but only smoke, the land around is generally farmland or ranching, and well protected from catching fire. Great self-reliance for food and energy.
Problems: generally just the Canada-wide ones (e.g. healthcare system has collapsed but they haven't noticed, Ottawa largely doesn't care about the West, economy is 50% real estate, immigration is 95% of population growth and has resulted in a very exploitative and corrupt system that lures in young people to be poorly-paid expendable labour under the guise of Canadian Permanent Resident through exorbitantly expensive but low-quality education). Locally, Calgary leans very left (NDP, the Left-most party in Canada), but this balances well with the Conservative provincial government.
That mirrors what Canadians have told me. There's little interest in innovation and building tech when the simplest way to make money is simply housing.
The CSeries comes to mind, it was almost ready and had orders for years, then the Trump admin slapped tariffs on it and Trudeau did basically nothing. All it needed was a little capital injection while waiting for the courts to declare the tariffs illegal and remove them. Instead, Airbus bought it for virtually nothing.
As someone in tech, it's scary to see how little support such an innovative plane got from the government. This would never happen here with Boeing (just look at the 737 MAX) or in Europe with Airbus. And the A220 (the rebranded name) is making a fortune for European investors right now.
> immigration is 95% of population growth and has resulted in a very exploitative and corrupt system that lures in young people to be poorly-paid expendable labour under the guise of Canadian Permanent Resident
The point of immigration is to fill a shortage. That's why here there are rules regarding salary requirements for immigration purposes. If a job isn't paying a lot, it's because it's not in demand; why then bring-in more people to an already saturated market? What’s the logic here?
Don't commit to any locale and design a life that's highly mobile.