I actually think that the impact to rich Americans of climate change won’t be that bad. We’ll pay a lot more for food and utilities, there will be some mass ecological disasters, mass extinctions, various invasive species and disease outbreaks will be major problems, and there will be major natural disasters and very high insurance premiums. Our lives will become worse in countless, mostly mundane ways.
The impact on the global poor, however, will be extreme. Whether it’s prolonged drought in the Sahel causing starvation for tens of millions, or Haiti getting hit by a category five hurricane with damage orders of magnitude worse than Hurricane Maria caused in Puerto Rico (this keeps me up at night).
But, no, technically this falls short of being an existential threat to humanity. Carry on, Supreme Court–thanks for protecting us from an overly expansive administrative state!
In the worst-case scenarios in scientists’ climate models, human-caused climate change is a threat to the continued existence of our species. There is a genuine possibility that within the coming century, we will hit temperatures that are deeply incompatible with the continued existence of human life.
I think the definition of “rich” americans is gonna continue to slide to the top 0.001% while the rest of us scorch or freeze.
i mean tons of wealthy people live in LA, right? would hate to own property down here (oh shit) given the fact there’s zero chance we’re able to sustain a fraction of this population even 30 years from now, even if we’re considering water supply alone, let alone energy costs and stuff from scorching temps + catastrophic year-round wildfires.
And even if we don’t all die right away, billions of people starving and being forced to relocate due to flooding or their home becoming unlivable will send us into a new dark ages.
ok, since you’ve now identified yourself as a troll with nothing substantative to say, I guess you can have the privilege of being first on my ignore list.
Teaching him about what is actually happening with climate change is “nothing substantive to say”. Figures. Guess he just prefers to wallow in ignorance. Most people do, after all.
People aren’t just going to stay where they are and die. Many will migrate. This will cause wars. As will rich countries competing with each over an ever reducing amount of resources. Some of these wars may well be major. WAAF.
Jmakin helped teach me a while ago that it isn’t important whether you can back up your positions with logic *, the important thing is to make your debate opponent feel bad and lurkers feel bad for agreeing with him. By mocking his dumb belief, hopefully people will be less inclined to repeat climate alarmism in this venue.
Go nuts arguing with normies with whatever bullshit you want, it’s helpful for getting Ds elected and climate legislation and regs passed. But don’t actually stress out about the ridiculousness.
*It’s personally important to me, but has lite practical effect.
yea “educating” is clearly 1 word non responses to stuff that’s very easy to look up and validate on your own
per data from the icc report for 2022, we would need to reduce our co2 emissions by 85% by 2050 to have a likely (as in, not 100%) chance of <2 C before 2100. given that our GHG emissions are actually still growing year over year, and have grown nearly 50% in the last 30 years alone - I am not as overly rosy at the outcomes here by 2100 as the non-evidence people like iron like to chuckle about. if they’re serious at all, I hope it’s because they’ve already got one foot in the grave and no children to care about, otherwise it feels extremely fucked up.
I mean if you actually want to troll me about this you may as well go for the obvious lines like me driving a 12mpg V8 in 2022, but I guess you can also make a vague reference to an outdated op-ed i wrote several years ago on how to troll right wing deplorables on fb - ironically outing yourself as a troll by doing so
To show Iron’s cards here is he’s trying to imitate the Yglesias play against climate alarmism, but sadly Iron didn’t take away the right idea. Yglesias and the centrist guys play against climate alarmism when it turns to nihilism aka being so alarmed by the climate that you say there’s nothing we can do or reject anything but Malthusian solutions
In that case yes we should have a sense of perspective and have a positive attitude that through regulation and invention we can beat climate change.
Iron just took away that he should be nonchalant about climate change against anyone being alarmed at all. But being alarmed about anything is the first step in bringing about change. A Yglesias bedbug is that lead pollution is bad and we should things to reduce it, but if the Supreme Court blocked lead regulation and someone said “that’s fucked up” and I said “so what it’s not an extential threat to humanity” then Iron would think of me as a callous shitposter
They have already been around for a long time. The first one was 2,500 BC in Samaria. Recently the Russian invasion of Ukraine was partly over water access in Crimea.
