Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.
> Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.
Not at all. Agriculture may be a large producer of CO2, but the plaintiffs are organic farmers that work hard to reduce the impact that farming has on CO2 production.
> Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.
That is something that annoys me about current political discussions: Always trying to attack the messenger instead of the message.
Even if that would have been people responsible for producing the most CO2 on the planet, that would and should have no effect on the validity of the message and their claim that there is to much CO2 produced and that the government should have prevented them doing so.
The Urgenda case was slightly different though. In NL, they argued their case on behalf of the next generation (broadly speaking), and the outcome of the trial was a 25% emissions reduction target for the government to meet.
The German case seems easier (on the surface), because it is about the government failing to meet the targets it has set itself.
The sun is the most significant contributor to the temperature on the planet earth. For now, this contribution seems stable, but in the past, the heat of the sun has fluctuated quickly. CO2 may be the primary contributor to our climate temperature at the moment, but to think that a government is entirely responsible for climate temperature is like saying your parents are responsible for the current behaviour of the sun. It is too simplistic, and it will encourage people to believe that a government has more say about reality than it does. We should prepare for warmer and colder climates: In our near future, there could be a small scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India, there could be a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor strike. This last era of climatic temperature stability was a lucky thing that let civilization rise as quickly as it did. A responsible government would harden it's seed stocks against warmer/colder temperatures and train up its youth to be dynamic and imaginative problem solvers.
They aren't suing the German Government because they say it's responsible for Global Warming, they're suing because the German Government publicly announced Goals for CO2 reduction till 2020 by 40% which they failed to deliver by a wide margin.
By the way the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global Warming, proven time and time again.
Yes, water vapor is a contributor - but at an equilibrium rate determined by the temperature! In the narrow band of temperature we live in, increases in CO2 drive an increase in vapor which magnifies their effect.
> Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmo-spheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.
"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Agreed that the point of science isn’t consensus. It’s ok.
In the case of Germany there are good reasons to blame the politicians, replacing existing nuclear with coal to score with the greens is one such reason.
It's common courtesy to provide a foundation for outlandish claims when you make them. Otherwise it just sounds like you're making a whole lot of things up.
Making these kind of claims often relies on obscuring any sort of foundation, and mental gymnastics to deny anything other than a sarcastic take on common courtesy.
> these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018
They should be so lucky.
Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth, fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on water.
Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest and driest springs on recorded.
With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax.
At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses that disaster.
I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.
> With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax.
For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority.
You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past.
edit:
[1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!
> curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority
May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects
Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.
> 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects
Citation?
I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all.
Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
> The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.
This sentence claims consensus exists 90%–100% of all publishing climate scientists.
> Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.
Here the story changes in two ways:
- the number is related to research papers, not individual scientists, as is the claim. There is a difference both in fact, and in persuasive value. I feel the greater persuasive ability of this incorrect and deceitful framing was chosen, and I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the choice was subconscious, which explains the utter obliviousness to the hypocrisy below. The human mind is highly tuned for persuasive communication, both within each individual lifetime, but also evolutionarily across centuries. Our minds are so good at it, we can easily pull the wool over our own eyes (might this be one of those times?). Most people would have no problem acknowledging this if the topic of discussion was psychology, but when it's mentioned in the context of identity-related conversations such as this, the reception is typically far less warm in my experience.
- the actual percentage of papers that express concensus is 33% (4014 of 11,944 total abstracts), not 97%
> A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.
Here they seem to imply different conclusions are factually incorrect, and the person who disagreed is using dishonest rhetorical techniques.
> At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics.
Yet, they have absolutely no problem assuming, in the very same paragraph, that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') DO represent endorsement. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
> We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Appreciate the opportunity to dive in and read this myself!
The story doesn't "change", that's the abstract where they're presenting the different pieces of research covered in the paper. It's like they're giving a tour of the house, here's the bedroom, here's the living room, here's the kitchen.
There's 3 main chunks across 8 pages, including 2 pages of tables of different studies:
- A survey of scientific publications
- A survey of expert scientists who published about climate science
- Other similar studies that attempted to estimate "consensus"
I appreciated their closing statement:
"From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the
consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high
because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly
strong."
Overall, I'm glad for the opportunity to read further, and agree with the conclusions of the 8 page paper. Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.
> The story doesn't "change", they're presenting the different pieces of research covered in the paper.
Yes, it does change. Individual forums discussions like this are typically a popularity contest, and you will surely win that, but I suggest your concern should be winning the war, not meaningless battles like this.
> I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.
A typically bold and confident statement. But what if it isn't actually true that it "doesn't matter"?
Whether the fact I point out above (and this is just one, there are many others) is is a meaningful change in the broader perspective is an interesting question. From the purely scientific perspective, it is indeed meaningless, of course. But from the perspective of persuading the entire population of an entire planet of people to change their behavior, is it (and other things like this) still meaningless? I have no way of knowing that, but I very strongly suspect it's not meaningless, at all. If it was me, with the stakes this high, I'd probably want to at least do a little bit of investigation rather than take my chances, but then I seem to have a far more conservative personality than others with passion for this topic.
My intuition tells me that to ultimately crack this nut, we are going to have to beat the Big Boss: the human ego. But first, we have to realize this entity even exists. Based on our demonstrated intelligence, awareness, and progress thus far in this journey, I am not optimistic.
> Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.
Yes, let's. The scientists have indeed done a fine job within their specialized discipline, the rest is out of their hands. Are we up to doing as good of a job as they've done within their discipline? Are we willing to acknowledge and address that which is standing in the way to applying the same level of disciplined intellectual rigor that exists in the hard sciences? Personally, I don't think we are, at least those of us in Western cultures. My best hope at this point is that China progresses fast enough to solve this problem for all of humanity.
Yeah, I completely know what you're talking about in terms of water versus carbon dioxide.
I work on climate solutions every day. My specific focus is on carbon and mining carbon from the air. However, loss of groundwater and water depletion is such a powerful short term challenge, it can take the spotlight away from carbon. Without water, a society grinds to a halt in hours and days.
I'm interested in how others are thinking about that and keeping these balanced.
EDIT: My suggestion for your statement above is: "which will have an impact decades down the line". It's the "may or may not" that brings out the pitchforks.
Also, the "belief" thing on anthro-change is puzzling. Imagine reading notes on a discussion with Newton where someone to profess their "belief in gravity". Do we "believe in gravity" today? Wish we had a better word/term for this.
Nice assessment! Living in California, it's so tempting for me to point to the latest drought as "proof of climate change". But I find it safer to keep my climate discussions longer term, i.e. rising seas, overall warmer temperatures, less-stable climate.
How are you balancing this in your convos in Australia?
Australia and it's approach to climate change is rather depressing.
There have plenty of signs indicating the country is facing serious climate change issues. But despite these warnings, we as a nation have had decades with little or no action.
However, if the current Spring is any indication this Summer might be a turning point.
The record Spring temperatures suggest we might be in for a record breaking hot Summer.
Not only will that mean a worsening of the current drought conditions, but it also greatly increases the risk of serious bush fires (i.e wild fires).
As recent Australian history has shown, when it gets hot and windy those are the perfect conditions for uncontrollably, raging bush fires.
At this point? A few decades of drought, fire, and famine is probably what it’s going to take. The science is clear, but you have to play the long game, and humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking in aggregate. We’ve enjoyed unfettered growth forever, but the piper is coming...
I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I want a law preventing you from swinging it into my face.
Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others.
What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!
> Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others.
What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford?
By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.
I don't think it will change as long as the US is the hegemon superpower. Not because they are evil or anything, but because individualism it's the core tenet of the US.
Communal and unified?, 90% of the Americans would say that's communism
Sure 90% of Americans now, but if society is changing, that could include a change out of the hegemon superpower position, and a change in perceptions and attitudes of things current average Americans would say is communism.
It seems to my limited perspective that America is moving more left, and that Trumpism is a reaction against that.
I wonder the same thing! A mandate doesn't always have an upfront dollar cost, but it's certainly being paid for somehow.
For example, subsidies on EVs. These shifts are tricky since they alter the market, so we have to figure out if it's worth pushing the market ahead. A subsidy on EVs is basically pumping money into the EV market ahead of when it would "organically" be there. So there's a cost to those dollars and interest, kind of like using a credit card to buy something today when you don't have the cash. In some cases it makes a lot of sense, but it's not free money.
In the case of EV subsidies in the USA/California, anecdotally it appears really successful.
Has anyone seen a study on the "effectiveness" of the EV subsidies in the United States, perhaps just in California? Who paid, did it work, was it worth accelerating? I'm biased towards "yes", but would love to see such a study.
The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming". Unless Germany plans on building rockets and leaving the planet entirely, they'll be as affected as everyone else on the long-term scale.
The notion of country matters very much in the conversation of global warming - while every country will be somehow affected, the effect will be very different for different countries. A rise of sea level will eliminate or devastate some contries while barely affecting others; the change in rainfall and temperature patterns will devastate agriculture in some countries while improving it in others; etc.
And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to reduce these consequences.
Apart from droughts and the heat etc. what happens when people try to escape all those consequences in their countries by becoming refugees? Germany would need to do something about it, whether let them in, keep them out by huge military force etc.
Of course, that would affect Germany as well, but it's obvious that the effect of that migration on Germans would be fundamentally different from the effect of that same migration on e.g. Bangladeshis, the choices they need to make (or can make) to mitigate that impact are substantially different.
> The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming"
It depends if you're talking about how things should be, or how they are.
Or, whether the point of the conversation is strictly to communicate scientific details, or to persuade the entire non-homogeneous population of an entire planet to alter their behavior. If I was running the show, I would craft a completely different conversation for the latter situation, since it is infinitely more complex, but this doesn't seem to be a terribly popular opinion. Rather, the chosen approach seems to be to just blast a few variations of a tiny (and sometimes incorrect) subset of the content from the former conversation repeatedly through various media channels, insult those (typically based on simplistic strawman caricatures) who aren't eagerly jumping on board, and complain about how "stupid" people are. We'll see how this approach turns out, but so far it doesn't seem to be very effective in my estimation.
If this situation was reasonably accurately recreated in a video game, I suspect the problem would have been identified and solved long ago, but here in the real world where we have very real consequences, we're unable to approach problems with the same intellectual rigor we would in a video game. Humans are a complex species.
The article title is actually "Farmers fail in bid to sue German government over alleged climate change failures" - the opposite of what's implied by the HN link.
52 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadhttps://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-cli...
Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.
Not at all. Agriculture may be a large producer of CO2, but the plaintiffs are organic farmers that work hard to reduce the impact that farming has on CO2 production.
https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change
>The science is clear. Wetlands are the most effective carbon sinks on our planet.
Let me guess the next story headline, "Brazilian slash and burn farmers sue government for failing to meet CO2 reduction targets."
The downvotes here prove to me the people reading HN are rabid zealots who are not interested in truth or science at all.
That is something that annoys me about current political discussions: Always trying to attack the messenger instead of the message.
Even if that would have been people responsible for producing the most CO2 on the planet, that would and should have no effect on the validity of the message and their claim that there is to much CO2 produced and that the government should have prevented them doing so.
The government 'lost'.
The German case seems easier (on the surface), because it is about the government failing to meet the targets it has set itself.
By the way the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global Warming, proven time and time again.
"scientific consensus" is not a thing. Also, "proven time and time again"? Just to let you know, water vapour is a much larger contributor.
Sure, sue because the Government lied. Why don't you vote them out? Can you sue them?
There's even a nice explainer in IPCC AR5 about this ("FAQ 8.1"): https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...
> Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmo-spheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.
From NASA’s https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#
"The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Agreed that the point of science isn’t consensus. It’s ok.
They should be so lucky.
Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth, fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on water.
Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest and driest springs on recorded.
With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax.
At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses that disaster.
I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.
For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority.
You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past.
edit:
[1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!
May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects
Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.
Citation?
I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all.
Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)
Full of references including that number:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
This sentence claims consensus exists 90%–100% of all publishing climate scientists.
> Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.
Here the story changes in two ways:
- the number is related to research papers, not individual scientists, as is the claim. There is a difference both in fact, and in persuasive value. I feel the greater persuasive ability of this incorrect and deceitful framing was chosen, and I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the choice was subconscious, which explains the utter obliviousness to the hypocrisy below. The human mind is highly tuned for persuasive communication, both within each individual lifetime, but also evolutionarily across centuries. Our minds are so good at it, we can easily pull the wool over our own eyes (might this be one of those times?). Most people would have no problem acknowledging this if the topic of discussion was psychology, but when it's mentioned in the context of identity-related conversations such as this, the reception is typically far less warm in my experience.
- the actual percentage of papers that express concensus is 33% (4014 of 11,944 total abstracts), not 97%
> A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.
Here they seem to imply different conclusions are factually incorrect, and the person who disagreed is using dishonest rhetorical techniques.
> At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics.
Yet, they have absolutely no problem assuming, in the very same paragraph, that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') DO represent endorsement. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
> We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Indeed.
The story doesn't "change", that's the abstract where they're presenting the different pieces of research covered in the paper. It's like they're giving a tour of the house, here's the bedroom, here's the living room, here's the kitchen.
There's 3 main chunks across 8 pages, including 2 pages of tables of different studies:
- A survey of scientific publications
- A survey of expert scientists who published about climate science
- Other similar studies that attempted to estimate "consensus"
I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong."
Overall, I'm glad for the opportunity to read further, and agree with the conclusions of the 8 page paper. Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.
Yes, it does change. Individual forums discussions like this are typically a popularity contest, and you will surely win that, but I suggest your concern should be winning the war, not meaningless battles like this.
> I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.
A typically bold and confident statement. But what if it isn't actually true that it "doesn't matter"?
Whether the fact I point out above (and this is just one, there are many others) is is a meaningful change in the broader perspective is an interesting question. From the purely scientific perspective, it is indeed meaningless, of course. But from the perspective of persuading the entire population of an entire planet of people to change their behavior, is it (and other things like this) still meaningless? I have no way of knowing that, but I very strongly suspect it's not meaningless, at all. If it was me, with the stakes this high, I'd probably want to at least do a little bit of investigation rather than take my chances, but then I seem to have a far more conservative personality than others with passion for this topic.
My intuition tells me that to ultimately crack this nut, we are going to have to beat the Big Boss: the human ego. But first, we have to realize this entity even exists. Based on our demonstrated intelligence, awareness, and progress thus far in this journey, I am not optimistic.
> Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.
Yes, let's. The scientists have indeed done a fine job within their specialized discipline, the rest is out of their hands. Are we up to doing as good of a job as they've done within their discipline? Are we willing to acknowledge and address that which is standing in the way to applying the same level of disciplined intellectual rigor that exists in the hard sciences? Personally, I don't think we are, at least those of us in Western cultures. My best hope at this point is that China progresses fast enough to solve this problem for all of humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtBxI_ydba4
The 97% part starts around 2:55 thru 7:40.
I work on climate solutions every day. My specific focus is on carbon and mining carbon from the air. However, loss of groundwater and water depletion is such a powerful short term challenge, it can take the spotlight away from carbon. Without water, a society grinds to a halt in hours and days.
I'm interested in how others are thinking about that and keeping these balanced.
EDIT: My suggestion for your statement above is: "which will have an impact decades down the line". It's the "may or may not" that brings out the pitchforks.
Also, the "belief" thing on anthro-change is puzzling. Imagine reading notes on a discussion with Newton where someone to profess their "belief in gravity". Do we "believe in gravity" today? Wish we had a better word/term for this.
How are you balancing this in your convos in Australia?
There have plenty of signs indicating the country is facing serious climate change issues. But despite these warnings, we as a nation have had decades with little or no action.
However, if the current Spring is any indication this Summer might be a turning point.
The record Spring temperatures suggest we might be in for a record breaking hot Summer.
Not only will that mean a worsening of the current drought conditions, but it also greatly increases the risk of serious bush fires (i.e wild fires).
As recent Australian history has shown, when it gets hot and windy those are the perfect conditions for uncontrollably, raging bush fires.
Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others.
Similar cases in the U.S. and Canada:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-tee...
This article mentions cases in Colombia, Holland, Norway, India, and Belgium, saying they are progressing https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-gover....
What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!
What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford?
By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.
Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified?
(edit: spelling)
Communal and unified?, 90% of the Americans would say that's communism
It seems to my limited perspective that America is moving more left, and that Trumpism is a reaction against that.
For example, subsidies on EVs. These shifts are tricky since they alter the market, so we have to figure out if it's worth pushing the market ahead. A subsidy on EVs is basically pumping money into the EV market ahead of when it would "organically" be there. So there's a cost to those dollars and interest, kind of like using a credit card to buy something today when you don't have the cash. In some cases it makes a lot of sense, but it's not free money.
In the case of EV subsidies in the USA/California, anecdotally it appears really successful.
Has anyone seen a study on the "effectiveness" of the EV subsidies in the United States, perhaps just in California? Who paid, did it work, was it worth accelerating? I'm biased towards "yes", but would love to see such a study.
And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to reduce these consequences.
https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-mig...
It depends if you're talking about how things should be, or how they are.
Or, whether the point of the conversation is strictly to communicate scientific details, or to persuade the entire non-homogeneous population of an entire planet to alter their behavior. If I was running the show, I would craft a completely different conversation for the latter situation, since it is infinitely more complex, but this doesn't seem to be a terribly popular opinion. Rather, the chosen approach seems to be to just blast a few variations of a tiny (and sometimes incorrect) subset of the content from the former conversation repeatedly through various media channels, insult those (typically based on simplistic strawman caricatures) who aren't eagerly jumping on board, and complain about how "stupid" people are. We'll see how this approach turns out, but so far it doesn't seem to be very effective in my estimation.
If this situation was reasonably accurately recreated in a video game, I suspect the problem would have been identified and solved long ago, but here in the real world where we have very real consequences, we're unable to approach problems with the same intellectual rigor we would in a video game. Humans are a complex species.
The 2018 drought cost farmers in germany approximately 2 billion euros -> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/germany-f...
ground water levels are at an all time low due to very little rain: 2018 was especially problematic.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-chang...
forrests are dying at an alarming rate https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/07/part-of-...
I wouldn't say germany is a climate change hotspot but the effects are already here. Politics just hasn't caught up with reality yet.